Tag: Culture

Posted on

Is the Syria of Today the Assyria of the Bible?

091013Given all the talk of Syria in the news lately, I was asked if Syria is the same “Assyria” that is mentioned in the Bible. The answer is no from a political perspective. The modern state of Syria was formed after World War I and became independent after World War II.

However, there are historical connections to ancient Assyria, including some similar territory. Given the recent news, perhaps we can take a brief look at ancient Assyria and the role it played in Biblical history. As with everything in Scripture, there are important teachings and admonitions for us.

Assyria was one of the Great Mesopotamian powers along with the Babylonians and the nearby Persians. The areas they occupied are roughly close to the borders of modern day Syria (Assyria), Iraq (Babylon) and Iran (Persia). Assyria in particular, was located to the east and Northeast of the Northern Kingdom of Israel stretching into Mesopotamia (the broad plain between the Tigris and Euphrates rivers). See map at upper right, click to enlarge.

Assyria as a nation began a rise to power in the 13th Century BC and contended with Egypt and Babylon for control of the area of Palestine. During this time, The Jewish people were in bondage in Egypt.

Assyria enjoyed a kind of “Golden age” from 12th – 10 Centuries BC. but became weakened through corruption and increasing hostilities with Babylon to its south. It was during this time that the Jews reentered Palestine and reached their own “Golden Age” under King David. Even after David, Omri the King of Israel had conquered part of Assyria and the Land of Aram near modern day Damascus and Made an alliance with the Phoenicians to the North (modern day Lebanon). This was the height of the North Kingdom’s (Israel) power, and the Assyrian armies were largely held in check.

But, beginning in the 9th Century BC Assyria began a reform that led to it arising once more as a formidable power. During that same period, (9th – 8th Centuries BC), The Jews were in a decline as the Northern Kingdom of Israel and the Southern Kingdom of Judah had divided and were engaged in increasing conflict and even outright war with one another.

Assyria grew stronger, and by the early 8th Century and began to dominate the nations of the Ancient Near East, with Israel still being its most formidable foe.

Among the newer weapons the Assyrians employed were the battering ram, along with ladders to scale ancient walls. The Assyrians were also great charioteers, having some 2,ooo chariots, most of them large enough to carry two or three men with weapons. Assyria also had a reputation for great bowmen, slingers and even some cavalry.

Israel by comparison at the time had only 10 chariots and tended to win more through superior tactics than by lots of equipment.

By the late 8th Century (c.a. 725 BC) Assyrian had reconquered Babylon and was dominating Israel, demanding tribute. The Prophets had been warning Israel that due to her sins, she was growing weaker and her enemies were growing stronger. God sent Elijah and Elisha, Amos and Hosea. Each in their own way warned that power had corrupted the northern Kingdom of Israel.

Elijah and Elisha warned of the extreme spiritual danger posed by the false worship of the Baals by many in Israel and the toleration of this by many more. Hosea depicted Israel as a false Bride who in her infidelity had become an adulterer and prostitute. He poured out God’s heart and reminded Israel of its first Love and that God’s was calling her back. Amos minced no words and denounced Israel for her injustice to the poor, violence and of even being willing to sacrifice her children to false gods!

Yet there was a consistent refusal to heed the call to repent. This period is the background for the story of the Prophet Jonah who was sent by God to Nineveh, the Capitol of Assyria to preach repentance. Jonah knew that if they repented they would grow stronger, so he fled and refused the mission. God pursued him, and after the storm at sea and a whale of a ride, Jonah did go, and the Assyrians of Nineveh did repent, and thereby grew stronger.

The final showdown with Israel came in 721 B.C. during the reign of King Hoshea who foolishly and against prophetic instruction made a pact with Egypt and refused to pay tribute to Assyria. Shalmanesar,  King of Assyria attacked the Northern Kingdom of Israel utterly destroying it (cf 2 Kings 17). Those who survived disappeared into exile (the so-called “10 Lost Tribes” of Israel).  The few who remained intermarried with the Assyrians and became the Samaritan people.

An attempt to destroy the Southern Kingdom of Judah was miraculously turned back at the gates of Jerusalem when a likely case of dysentery afflicted the Assyrian army. Further conflicts in the decades ahead with Egypt and Babylon eclipsed Assyrian power once again. By the close of the 7th Century Assyria was little more than a loose confederation of Scythian Tribes.

The Modern State of Syria, though occupying Land similar to ancient Assyria, is not equivalent to or even a direct descendent of ancient Assyria. Syria was established after the first World War and was governed by the French who replaced the Ottomans. Syria gained independence in April 1946, as a parliamentary republic. But the  post-independence period has been stormy, with a large number of military coups especially in the years  1949–1971.

A final thought. Jesus warned the people of his own day, This is a wicked generation. It asks for a sign, but none will be given it except the sign of Jonah (Lk 11:29)  Jesus was harkening back to the historical paradox that when Israel would not repent, he frequently used the pagan nations around them to humble and purify them. Since Israel would not repent, God sent Jonah to strengthen the Assyrians and God eventually used Assyria to prune Israel, and execute justice for its failure to repent.

And thus for the people of Jesus time, if they would not repent, and come to believe, they, in their foolishness like Hoshea of old, would wage war, this time against the Romans, and suffer a horrible blow. That in fact happened in 70 AD when the Temple was destroyed and 1.2 million Jews died in the war.

It is a mysterious providence but it is also written to warn us. If we do not repent, we cannot be strong, and our enemies will surely overwhelm us. And what will our Assyria, our Rome be? It could be radical Islam, it could be our debt crisis, it could be our demographic winter. But by failing to repent, by our injustice, our refusal to keep commitments, our rising unbelief and ingratitude, by our sacrificing our children on the “altars” of our lust and our burning incense to the “gods” of this age, we are calling a just punishment and grave consequences that cannot forever wait.

Posted on

CS Lewis as many have never heard him.

"C.S.Lewis3" Licensed under Fair use via Wikipedia
“C.S.Lewis3” Licensed under Fair use via Wikipedia

One of the lesser known and lesser read works of CS Lewis is his correspondence with Rev. Fr. Don Giovanni Calabria. Few indeed have read them since they were written in Latin. And though an English translation was published in 1998, I know few who have ever heard of these letters. The full collection of these letter is here: The Latin Letters of CS Lewis

I first wrote on these letters two years ago but a recent conversation prompts me to re-post on them. Why? There are many who are rightly bewildered at the steep decline of faith in here in America which seems to have happened very dramatically in the late 1960s. But as these reflections by CS Lewis witness, the decline in faith and the erosion of moral life in Europe was already well underway in the late 1940s. Indeed, it was linked to the horrifying experience with two world wars, that seems to have both resulted from, and further exacerbated the decline of faith there.

Had not our Lady warned at Fatima in 1917:

The war (WW I) is going to end: but if people do not cease offending God, a worse one will break out during the Pontificate of Pope 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. (Second Secret of Fatima).

Of course we know the sad story. The repentance did not take place and, following one of the most vivid displays of the Northern lights ever recorded (Jan 25, 1938) the Second World War was underway. Germany annexed Austria in March of 1938 and Poland was invaded in 1939. WW II was engaged.

Many of us in America know little of the steep decline of Faith in Europe that took place long before the cultural revolution here of the 1960s. Our knowledge of world history is poor and little do most modern Americans understand the horrifying blood bath that the 20th Century was. Conservative estimates are that 100 million people died in wars or were exterminated for ideological purposes. Loss of faith was surely a cause and also a lasting effect from the cauldron of that horrible Century, a Century marked by amazing invention and yet a body count of almost unimaginable numbers, even more, when we add the horror of Abortion.

These Letters of CS Lewis open a window on that mid-century period of European History. There are some very important insights that CS Lewis offers for the loss in faith in Europe already well underway in the early 1950s when the letters were exchanged.

Indeed I would call his insights stunning in many ways. Lewis argues, in effect that Europe was in a far worse state than paganism. Would that she were even pagan, for the pagans accepted natural law. But Europe, having cast off the faith, is in a state far worse than even before she ever heard of Christ.

In the quotes that follow CS Lewis makes this case quite well an then proffers a solution that we may wish to consider in these times that are even darker for Europe and the whole of the West. Allow me to present just a few excerpts. The Latin text is italicized. The English translation (by Martin Moynihan) is just below the Latin in black bold and italic type face. My comments are in red.

Let us begin with Lewis assessment as to how and by what stages Europe lost the faith:

Neque tamen sine peccatis nostris evenit: nos enim justiam illam, curam illam pauperum quas (mendacissime) communistae praeferunt debueramus jam ante multa saecula revera effecisse. Sed longe hoc aberat: nos occidentales Christum ore praedicavimus, factis Mammoni servitium tulimus. Magis culpabiles nos quam infideles: scientibus enim voluntatem Dei et non facientibus major poena. Nunc unicum refugium in contritione et oratione. Diu erravimus. In legendo Europae historiam, seriem exitiabilem bellorum, avaritiae, fratricidarum Christianorum a Christianis persecutionum, luxuriae, gulae, superbiae, quis discerneret rarissima Sancti Spiritus vestigia? (Letter 20, Jan 7, 1953)

But (this) did not happen without sins on our part: for that justice and that care for the poor which (most mendaciously) the Communists advertise, we in reality ought to have brought about ages ago. But far from it: we Westerners preached Christ with our lips, with our actions we brought the slavery of Mammon. We are more guilty than the infidels: for to those that know the will of God and do not do it, the greater the punishment. Now the only refuge lies in contrition and prayer. Long have we erred. In reading the history of Europe, its destructive succession of wars, of avarice, or fratricidal persecutions of Christians by Christians, of luxury, of gluttony, of pride, who could detect any but the rarest traces of the Holy Spirit?

He makes a remarkable description here. Quite sobering! In effect there grew an appalling lack of love for God, for the poor and for one another. Greed and sloth also took their toll. The lip service faith meant that even Communism appeared more virtuous to some than the Faith.

The wars of which Lewis speaks encompass not only the 20th Century, wherein, as we remarked,  as many as 100 million souls perished in two World Wars and the dropping of the Iron Curtain, but war had taken a terrible toll all through the Christian era. Consider this list: European Wars of the Christian Era. The list is unbelievably long. War upon war, and so much of it was Christian killing Christian.

To be sure, 2oth Century was a kind of death blow to Europe. These terrible things happened on the Christian watch. We must be honest about that. Good things, wonderful things happened too: the monasteries, universities, hospitals etc, the great flowering of all that is best in Western culture. And it can be argued that the faith ushered in these things and also prevented things from being far worse. But a gradual internecine lack of love also took its toll and in the aftermath of the bloodiest century the world has ever known, Europe woke up to a largely faithless landscape.

Next Lewis describes how great is our fall:

Quae dicis de praesenti statu hominum vera sunt: immo deterior est quam dicis. Non enim Christi modo legem Naturae Paganis cognitam negligunt. Nunc enim non erubescunt de adulterio, proditione, perjurio, furto, certisque flagitiis quae non dico Christinaos doctores, sed ipsi pagani et barbari reprobaverunt. Falluntur qui dicunt “Mudus iterum Paganus fit” Utiam fieret! Re vera in statum multo pejorem cadimus. Homo post-Christianus non similis homini pre-Christiano. Tantum distant ut vidua a virgine….(est) magna differentia intra absentiam sponsi venturi, et sponsa amissi! (Letter 23, March 17, 1953)

What you say about the present state of mankind is true: indeed it is even worse than you say. For they neglect not only the Law of Christ, but even the Law of Nature as known by the Pagans. For now they do not blush at adultery, treachery perjury, theft and other crimes, which I will not say Christian doctors, but the Pagans and Barbarians have themselves denounced. They err who say: “The world is turning pagan again.” Would that it were! The truth is, we are falling into a much worse state. Post-Christian man is not the same as pre-Christian man. He is as far removed as a virgin from a widow….there is a great difference between a spouse-to-come and a spouse sent away.

Powerful analysis indeed. He makes similar remarks elsewhere about paganism but here it is succinctly stated. The modern European (and I would add American) are in a state below paganism. For at least the pagans had belief in the supernatural, some respect for Natural Law and could see what reality plainly taught. Modern Westerners are blinded even to that.

The pagan world was a virgin waiting for her groom. The modern West is an adulterous divorce’, cynical, angry and “so through” with Jesus. It is hard to know how the secular West will come round. Will she die in her sins, or will the miracle of broken, humbled heart emerge? Pray! Fast!

He reiterates and adds a stunning but biblical insight:

Certe sentio gravissima pericula nobis incumbere. Haec eveniunt quia maxima pars Europa apostasiam fecit de fide Christiana. Hinc status pejor quam illum statum quem habuimus ante fidem receptam. Nemo enim ex Christianismo redit in statum quem habuit ante Christianismum, sed in pejorem: tantum distat inter paganum et apostatam quantum innuptam et adulteram. Ergo plerique homines nostri temporis amiserunt non modo lumen supernaturale, sed etiam lumen illud naturale quod pagani habuerunt. (Letter 26, Sept 15, 1953)

I certainly feel that very grave dangers hang over us. This results from the great apostasy of the great part of Europe from the Christian faith. Hence, a worse state than the one we were in before we received the faith. For no one returns from Christianity to the same state he was in before Christianity, but into a worse state: the difference between a pagan and an apostate is the difference between an unmarried woman and an adulteress….Therefore many men of our time have lost not only the supernatural light, but also the natural light which the pagans possessed.

A powerful and stunning reminder that leaving the faith does not simply put them back to the status quo ante. You can never go home. The West is now in a worse state than paganism for the reasons Lewis states.

Jesus made the same warning: When an evil spirit comes out of a man, it goes through arid places seeking rest and does not find it. Then it says, ‘I will return to the house I left.’ When it arrives, it finds the house swept clean and put in order. Then it goes and takes seven other spirits more wicked than itself, and they go in and live there. And the final condition of that man is worse than the first. (Luke 11:24-25) Yes, having found the house bereft of the Holy Spirit, quite empty of true faith, Satan returns now with seven more demons and that last state is worse than the first.

St. Peter makes the same point: For if, after they have escaped the defilement of the world through the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and overcome, the last state has become worse for them than the first (2 Peter 2:20).

But, calling for Hope, CS Lewis considers a way back:

Sed Deus qui Deus misericordiarum est etiam nunc non omnio demisit genus humanum….Non desperandum. Et haud spernendus numerus (apud nos) iam redeunt in fidem….Equidem credo laborandum esse non modo in evangelizando (hoc certe) sed etiam in quadam praeparatione evangelica. Necesse est multos ad legem naturalem revocare antequam de Deo loquamur. Christus enim promittit remissionem peccatorum: sed quid hoc ad eos qui, quum legem naturalem ignorent, nesciunt se peccavisse. Quis medicamentum accipiet nisi se morbo teneri sciat? Relativismus moralis hostis est quem debemus vincere antequam Atheismum aggrediamur. Fere auserim dicere “Primo faciamus juniores bonos Paganos et postea faciamus Christianos. (Letter 26, Sept 15, 1953)

But God who is the God of mercies, even now has not altogether cast off the human race. We must not despair. And among us are not an inconsiderable number now returning to the faith. For my part, I believe we ought to work not only at spreading the Gospel (that certainly) but also to a certain preparation for the Gospel. It is necessary to recall many to the law of nature before we talk about God. For Christ promises forgiveness of sins, but what is that to those who, since they do not know the law of nature, do not know that they have sinned? Who will take medicine unless he knows he is in the grip of a disease? Moral relativity is the enemy we have to overcome before we tackle atheism. I would almost dare to say, “First let us make the younger generation good pagans, and afterwards let us make them Christians.”

To some extent, recent Popes have said the same, we have to begin all over again. But Lewis’ point goes even further since the apostles found a Europe where, at least people were in touch with reality and accepted reality’s testimony as a reliable guide.

Further, the Europe, the West that the apostles encountered had false religion, but at least it accepted that there was a spiritual realm that must be respected as real.

We in the post Cartesian West have retreated out of reality and into our minds. Reality, Natural Law is not a datum, is not a common ground on which to meet. There is no accepted reality, just thought, opinion, views. There is nothing outside ourselves to which we all owe allegiance and which demands our assent. No, we live, not in reality, but in a world of thoughts and abstractions.

Think I’m exaggerating? Try telling a homosexual that the body isn’t designed for homosexual acts and watch how quickly you get a blank stare or indignant response: “What’ my body got to do with it? Its what I feel that matters.” Yes, apparently our bodies have nothing to say to us and neither does anything else in the real world which we dismiss with our ideologies.

Our task in reintroducing the West to reality, to Natural Law, will not be easy, but CS Lewis thinks we’re going to have start there.

Pretty powerful insights, thought provoking, frank and insightful. I am interested in your thoughts.

Posted on

Two Hard Sayings of the Lord that Offend Modern Notions

082013The Gospel of Matthew features two hard sayings, or expressions, of the Lord. They are “hard” because they offend against modern notions. And since they are difficult for us “moderns” to hear and we are easily taken aback by their abrupt and coarse quality. Here is the “offending” verse:

Do not give what is holy to dogs, or throw your pearls before swine, lest they trample them underfoot, and turn and tear you to pieces.” (Mt 7:6)

The modern notion offended against here is: You’re not supposed to call people ugly names. This notion, though not wrong in itself, has become a rather excessively applied norm in our times and also misses the point in terms of this passage.

We live in what I would call “dainty” times where many people are easily offended. These are thin-skinned times of fragile egos where the merest slight often brings threats of lawsuits. Even observations intended as humor are excoriated and hurtful and out of line. And so, horror of horrors, here we have Jesus calling certain (unnamed) people “dogs” and “swine!” Explanations are demanded in times like these of such horrible words coming forth from the sinless Lord Jesus. Older commentaries felt less need to comment extensively on these verses.

Sophistication is needed – One of the reasons we are so easily offended in our modern age is, frankly, that we lack sophistication. We seem to have lost understanding, to a great extent, of simile and metaphor.

A simile is a figure of speech comparing two unlike things and normally includes words such as “like” and “as.” For example: “He is as swift and strong as a horse!” Similes have the two ideas remain distinct in spite of their similarities.

Metaphors compare two things without using “like” or “as”. For example, “He’s a real work-horse!” Metaphors are usually more forceful than similes since the distinction intended between the compared things is often ambiguous. For example if I were to observe someone doing something mean or cruel I might say, “Wow, what a dog!” Now the expression does not mean I have gone blind and think that this person is actually a dog. I mean that he is manifesting qualities of a (wild or mean) dog. However, just how distinct he is from an actual dog is left open to interpretation. But for the record, I am NOT saying he is a dog.

The point here is that some sophistication and appreciation for the nuances of language and the art of comparison are necessary as we negotiate life’s road. In modern times we seem to have lost some of this and so, are easily offended.

This does not mean that no one ever intends offense, it only means that more is necessary than simply hearing everything in a crudely literal way. The usual modern person in my example would object, “Hey, he called me a dog!” No, what he means is that you have taken on some of the qualities of a wild dog. Now to what extent he means you are like a dog is intentionally ambiguous, and an invitation for you to think of how you may have surrendered some of your humanity and become more like baser creatures.

Examining what the Lord says – This sort of sophistication is necessary as we examine these two of the Lord’s “offensive” sayings here. Let’s look at them both in terms of their historical root and then to what is being taught.

1. First of all let’s be clear that the Jewish people were not indicating positive traits when they used the term dog or swine to refer to someone. Dogs in the ancient world were not the pets of today. They were wild, and ran in packs. Pigs were unclean animals and something no Jew would ever touch, let alone eat. These are strong metaphors indicating significant aversion to some aspect of the person.

2. Do not give what is holy to dogs– This was a Jewish saying that was rooted in tradition. Some of the meat that had been sacrificed to God in the Temple was returned to the family to be eaten by them, and some was retained to be eaten by the Levites. But in no way was this meat that had been consecrated to God ever to be thrown to dogs or other animals to eat. If, for some reason,  it was not eaten by humans it was to be burned. Hence holy and sanctified meat was not to be thrown to dogs because it was holy.

3. [Do not] throw your pearls before swine, lest they trample them underfoot – Pearls were an image for wisdom in the Old Testament. Now the point here is that pigs value nothing they cannot eat. Pearls could not be eaten, thus if they were placed before pigs they would sniff them, determine they were not food, and simply trample them underfoot. The pigs have no appreciation of pearls.

4. So what is being said? Sacred matters, sacred things, wisdom, and participation in sacred things should not be easily offered to those who are incapable of appreciating them. There are those who despise what we call holy. There is little that can be done in such cases except deny them the pleasure of tearing apart holy things or trampling them underfoot.

Jesus is saying that some people are like dogs who tear apart sacred things and have no concept of their holiness. Some people are like pigs who do not appreciate anything they cannot eat or use for their pleasure. They simply trample under foot anything that does not please them or make sense to them, in the same way that pigs would trample pearls underfoot or dogs irreverently tear apart blessed food dedicated to God.

Further, there are some who, though not hostile, are ignorant of sacred realities. They do not perhaps intend offense but it is necessary that they should be taught, and then admitted to sacred rites or further instructed in deeper mysteries. Children, for example in the Western Rite, are not given the Holy Eucharist until they can distinguish it from ordinary food. Further, it is a necessary truth that some more advanced spiritual notions such as contemplative prayer are not often appreciated by those who have not been led there in stages.

The Lord is thus indicating that holy things are to be shared in appropriate ways with those who are able to appreciate them. It is usually necessary to be led into the Holy and just walk in unprepared or unappreciative.

In the ancient Church there was something known as the disciplina arcani (discipline of the secret) wherein only the baptized and confirmed would be admitted to the sacred mysteries of the Liturgy. Given the holiness with which the early Christians regarded the Mass, they exactly observed what the Lord is saying here. Careful instruction and gradual introduction to sacred truth was necessary before entering something so holy as the Sacred Liturgy. Even the unintentional trampling underfoot of sacred realities through simple ignorance was to be strictly avoided. To be sure, these were difficult times for the Church and persecution was common. Hence the Lord’s warning to protect the holy things was not just that they might be trampled underfoot but also that those who were like unto wild dogs and swine might not turn and tear you to pieces (Mat 7:6).

In the centuries after the Edict of Constantine the disciplina arcani gradually dissipated. Some remnants of it revived in the modern RCIA wherein the Catechumens are dismissed halfway through the Mass to reflect more fully on the Liturgy of the Word. And yet we have much to relearn in modern times about a deep reverence for the Sacred Liturgy. While it would not seem opportune to lock our Church doors as in ancient times, but preserving good order in the Liturgy, encouraging reverence, proper dress, and instilling deeper knowledge of the true meaning of the Sacred Liturgy are all important ways to ensure that we do not trample underfoot what is sacred.

 Regarding this video, the Text says, Sinner please don’t let this harvest pass, and die and lose your soul at last. One of the things I like about the old spirituals was that they still used older biblical language that had fallen out of fashion. For example calling people “Sinner.” You don’t hear preachers speak like this much today in these hypersensitive times. But the truth is we are all sinners.

Posted on

District of Columbia Cancels Appearance of Gospel Artist due to Views on Homosexuality. Who Will be Next?

Homosexual activists and advocates often state that they merely want recognition and certain legal rights, and that churches and other objectors to their life style remain free to have their opinions and state them in a free culture. And any expressed fears regarding compulsory recognition or punitive measures directed against objectors are dismissed as fear mongering.

Never mind that these fears are based in real experiences in Canada and Europe where clergy have been arrested and fined for presenting the biblical case against homosexuality in the pulpits of their own churches or the pages of their bulletins.

In the end we who raise alarms about the increasingly strident declaration of our objections as “hate speech” and as “human rights violations” remain concerned about legal punishment etc., despite “reassurances” from pro-homosexual advocates and government officials.

Today there is more confirmation about the price that is paid by those who object to the cultural juggernaut that activism is becoming. Gospel Artist Donnie McClurkin has had his appearance canceled by the Mayor’s Office here in DC due to his views on homosexuality. Here is the clip from a local Station, Fox 5 News:

Gospel star Donnie McClurkin made headlines several years ago, when he claimed god “delivered” him from homosexuality.

Now, he’s sounding off about a decision by D.C. leaders, to cancel his appearance at a concert over the weekend.

McClurkin was set to perform at a concert on Saturday, celebrating the 50th anniversary of the March on Washington.

In a video, McClurkin says he was on his way to the airport, when Mayor Vincent Gray’s office called him to tell him his appearance was cancelled.

“These are bully tactics simply because of stances that I took, never ever demeaning, never ever derogatory, any lifestyle – this is a civil rights infringement situation,” McClurkin said. [1]

Donnie McClurkin is renowned in Gospel music. He has a powerful, joyful and celebratory musical gift. I especially like his “Caribbean Medley” but there are so many great songs. In no way is he strident about his views and they do not figure prominently in his performances. But he has shared publicly on occasion his past struggles, and how God delivered him from homosexual tendencies, among other things.

Well of course there are now those in the ascendency among the cultural elites who will not permit even one scintilla of objection to homosexual behavior. And those who do so must be marginalized and excluded. No dissent from the new dogma of the elites is to be permitted. Dissent must be punished severely and swiftly.

I use words like “dogma” and “dissent” intentionally, since those who like to denounce religious rules and dogma and raise all sorts of objections to past “excesses” of excommunication and inquisition (limited those these were), have now adopted their own fervor for their new anti-religion. And many are far more dogmatic, punitive and excluding than any religious group of recent memory. If you object to the new cultural agenda, you have to go. You must be excluded as dangerous and evil.

Some one may say, “The city can choose who it wants to be at a city concert.” Legally that is true, though one wonders if other performers, say a pro-abortion artist we be so summarily excluded.

But the point to be raised and discussed here is not a legal point but a cultural and moral one. Actions like these put to the lie any notion that homosexual activists merely seek to inculcate respect. They intend much more. Namely to destroy any dissent, marginalize and increasingly coerce consent for their agenda, and apply state sanctioned exclusion for any one who dares question their behavior.

The exclusion of Mr. McClurkin is only another step. Invited clergy are probably already being screened and excluded from any place on any dais if they do not have the politically correct view on this. Exclusions and restrictions are sure to increase and become more severe.

It is a common feature that radicals who march under the banner of tolerance and “libertas!” soon enough usher in their own reign of terror. Because when they say “tolerance” they don’t really mean it and certainly don’t mean they have to tolerate you. For them “tolerance” means your obligation to accept them, and freedom is your right and liberty to agree with whatever they say.

There seems to be absolutely no leeway that will in any way be granted. They will not, it seems, even brook the notion that for many who oppose the celebration of homosexual acts, the opposition is a matter of sincere conscience, not “hate.” If quoting the Bible or the Catechism equals hate, then night has surely come to the West. But we can do no other than adhere to God’s clear and consistent teaching all through the Scriptures at every stage which consigns homosexual acts to the realm of sin. Here I must stay, I can do no other. I will not overrule God to please men, gain access, or be considered acceptable to government officials and powerful lobby groups.

Now that these cultural radicals are politically ensconced the banners of tolerance and freedom are discarded. They never really meant it, and sure never meant the likes of Mr. McClurkin or other bible-believing Christians who object.

These exclusionary tactics are bound to increase and to become more punitive unless enough Americans begin to wake up and realize that all the talk about “tolerance” is not really what this agenda of the radicals has ever been about.

Rainbows may seem pretty, but they usually occur in the midst of a storm. This storm looks to get a lot worse.

DC News FOX 5 DC WTTG

Posted on

We Weren’t Always So Secular – A Remembrance of Times not Long Past

073013The times in which we live are often described as “secular.” This word comes from the Latin “saecula” meaning “world.” Hence in saying our age is secular is another way of saying our times are worldly.

We may think it has always been so but such is not the case.

To be sure, it IS the human condition to be a little preoccupied with the world. But previous times have featured a much more religious focus than our own. The Middle Ages were especially known for way in which faith permeated the culture and daily experience. The Rose window to the right presents a typically Medieval Notion: Christ (the Lamb of God) at the center and everything surrounding Him.

In those days the holidays were the HOLY days and one’s understanding of the calendar and the time of year centered around the Church’s calendar of saints and feasts. It wasn’t Winter it was advent, and then Christmastide. Even the word Christmas was ChristMASS. Halloween was the “Een (evening before) all Hallows (All Saints Day). Three times every day the Church bells rang the “Angelus” calling Catholics to a moment of prayer in honor of the incarnation. The Bells also rang summoning Catholics to Mass and vespers. In a previous article in this blog (By Their Buildings You Will Know Them) it was noted that even the architecture of the Middle Ages placed a large church at the center of every town.

Those days were not perfect days but they were more spiritual and the Christians everywhere were constantly reminded of the presence of God by the culture in which they lived. Seldom so today. Many people today almost never hear of God on a day-to-day basis.

But the truth is, God is everywhere. He indwells his creation and sustains every aspect of it. The Scriptures say that Jesus holds all creation together in himself (Col 1:17). Most people think of creation as a sort of machine or closed system in which we live. But that is not the case. Creation is a revelation of and experience of God’s love and providence. Not one leaf falls to the ground without God leading it there. Not one hair of our head is unknown and provided for by God. We are enveloped by God, caught up into his presence.

It is especially sad for young people today. Some of us who are a bit older remember a time when God was more recognized. I remember that we prayed every day in my PUBLIC school until I was in 6th grade.

I remember my 4th grade teacher often reminding me when I got out of line: “God is Watching!” She also kept a copy of the King James Bible on her desk and the worst thing a student could do was to put anything on top of the Bible. Within seconds Mrs Hicks would scold: “Don’t ever put on top of God’s Word….!” To this day I have a deep instinct never to place anything on top of a Bible. In that same public school we began each day as our Principal, Mr. Bulware read from the Bible, usually the New Testament, and then we prayed the Lord’s Prayer, then followed the Pledge of Allegiance….One nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

I remember when Christmas (not “winter holidays”) in School was actually celebrated and that we sang religious songs even in public school well into my High School years. I remember our public high school choir singing “O Come All Ye Faithful” and many songs with religious subjects. Can you imagine a public school choir singing today “O come let us adore Him, Christ the Lord” ? Gone are the days.

But we need to teach and help our young people get in touch with God’s presence. Families out to pray grace at meals with their children and have numerous religious images. There ought to be family prayer and observances of the various feasts and seasons of our Church.

Question For Readers: What are some of the websites you might know that are helpful in families staying focused on God? Perhaps there are some devoted to helping Children and Teenagers experience the faith and the cycle of the Church’s year? Perhaps a few of you can also recommend sites that are helpful in this regard.

But the point is that we have to be intentional about placing reminders of God’s presence in our lives and those of our children.


Posted on

Troubling Remarks From Anglican Archbishop Desmond Tutu Require Clarification

072813Recent remarks by the retired Anglican Bishop Desmond Tutu are not surprising for an Anglican prelate these days, but remain disturbing. Briefly put, the Archbishop says he would rather go to hell than go to a “homophobic heaven.”  Here’s some more complete report page of his remarks, in yesterdays Washington Times.

South Africa’s iconic retired archbishop, Desmond Tutu, said on Friday that if he had his pick, he’d go to hell before heading to a heaven that condemned homosexuality as sin. “I would not worship a God who is homophobic and that is how deeply I feel about this,” he said, by way of denouncing religions that discriminate against gays, in Agence France-Presse….He added, AFP reported: “I would refuse to go to a homophobic heaven. No, I would say sorry, I mean I would much rather go to the other place.” [1][2]

In fairness to the good Archbishop, the full context of these remarks is not included in the report but includes (but is not limited to) concerns about violence directed against homosexuals. Further, his many works on behalf of racial justice remain intact and were part of a noble struggle.

That said, there are several disturbing aspects to the archbishops comments:

1. He describes his opponents over-generally in this matter by using the term “homophobic.” And while it may be true that somewhere on this planet there are individuals who are truly “fearful” (=phobia)  of homosexual persons, or who hate them merely because they are homosexual, the use of the word “homophobic” is it best unhelpful, and at worse an uncharitable and inaccurate description. Most of us who oppose the approval or celebration of homosexual acts do so not in fear, but on principle, based on biblical and natural law reasons.

It is possible that the good archbishop is speaking only of the tiny minority who fear or hate homosexuals simply for their existence. And there are legitimate concerns, as expressed by the Archbishop, about countries where homosexual acts are criminalized (along with fornication and adultery). Perhaps this is not the best way to deal with these matters. Where there are acts of violence against homosexual persons, they are rightly condemned, as a are any acts of violence.

But I was not born yesterday, and it seems clear enough that Archbishop Tutu also means people like me when he uses the term “homophobic.” And he most likely includes the Catholic Church when he denounces religious bodies that  “discriminate” against homosexual persons (a charge I certainly deny) because we do not condone homosexual activity. Yes, it would seem he surely includes us in his category of “homophobic.” For he has chosen to use a word that is widely bandied about to refer to all persons, even those of sincere conscience, who oppose the militant homosexual  agenda. And if the archbishop does not mean me or the Catholic Church, at the very least I should hope for a clarification on his part.

It is a tired old tactic of many  who support the approval and celebration of homosexual acts to use terms to describe their opponents that are both ridiculing, and paint us in the darkest possible terms (e.g. hateful, bigoted, discriminatory etc).  Surely the Archbishop must know, even if he does not agree with many of us who oppose approval of homosexual activity and same-sex unions, that we think and speak out of an ancient biblical tradition which we believe to be the very word of God.

And while some today employ many dubious, or at least debatable interpretive theories of Scripture to avoid what the biblical texts clearly do say, it remains very evident to many of us that at every stage of biblical revelation, from the first pages of the Bible all the way to its concluding pages, that homosexual activity is condemned as sinful.  I have written more on that here: Letter on Homosexuality

Disagree with me if you sadly must, but I am no more homophobic than I am forniphobic for opposing fornication.

A simple request, of the archbishop would be a clarification and to avoid name-calling and simplifying the positions of his opponents. Likewise, for all who use similar tactics. It isn’t becoming to serious conversation, and surely is unbecoming of a Christian archbishop.

2. Any version of the words “I’d rather go to hell” should not pass the lips of anyone, let alone a Christian, even more so a Christian leader. Statements like these tend to invite unwanted demonic activity, and open the door to the wrong sorts of forces and drives.

While one can certainly hold the good archbishop was engaged in rhetorical flourish and hyperbole, it remains true that words to wit:  “I’d rather go to hell” should not be uttered for the reasons stated.

And even if it be so that it is merely hyperbole, why should such anger be engaged and deployed so widely? Does he really mean to speak this way, about a behavior that is reasonably rejected among Christians who read God’s word?

If the good archbishop considers me his enemy in this matter, did not the Lord say something about loving our enemies? If the archbishop considers me and others like me his persecutors, did not the Lord say that we should pray for our persecutors? Why would an archbishop theoretically familiar with God’s Word, say to me or others like me in effect,  “I’d rather go to hell than live with you in heaven.” Whence this anger, and the great lack of charity? It is wrong even to speak this way about those who who do act violently or hatefully toward homosexuals. Enemies are to be loved, persecutors prayed for.

3. Archbishop Tutu in an excerpt not quoted above but available by clicking on the links above equates the struggle against “homophobia” with the struggle against apartheid. As the pastor of a largely African American Parish, I know many Blacks who are troubled by the equating of the demands of homosexual activists with those of the civil rights activists some years ago. The concerns about homosexual acts regard behavior, whereas the concern of the civil rights movement was about race and discrimination based solely on that, not on behavior.

In particular, the Catholic Church distinguishes between homosexual orientation (disordered, but not per se sinful) and homosexual acts (sinful, as are acts of fornication and adultery in accord with the clear teaching of Sacred Scripture).

It is unjust to excoriate others for their opposition of  behavior with the logic that pertains to a non-behavioral trait such as race.

Some will argue that “God made them this way.” I am not so sure about that but will accept that most do not simply choose sexual orientation. That said, alcoholics, diabetics, and people who struggle with anger, do not choose these inclinations or struggles either. Nevertheless they must strive to act uprightly in spite of them. Heterosexuals are also summoned to act uprightly in spite of the often unruly sexual passions we possess. The God made me this way argument is does not set aside the question of behavior.

The opposition of the Church is about behavior, not how one is tempted or inclined. Chastity remains the rule for all. Those who have not received the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony and the Scriptures set it forth must refrain form genital sexual contact. Those who have received Holy Matrimony must stay faithful to one to their husband or wife.

4. Some note should be given to the phrase “homophobic heaven” spoken by the Archbishop.

First of all the concept of a “homophobic heaven” is a null set. For if there is true homophobia, it is rooted in fear and possibly in hate and these do not pertain to heaven. But as for the opposition to homosexual acts (along with heterosexual acts such as fornication and adultery), that is not homophobia, it is the stated opposition of God to such acts as clearly recorded in scripture. God is not homophobic, but he does oppose homosexual acts. Calling God homophobic, or his Church or St. Paul or any other person does not make them homophobic. Opposition to the radical Gay agenda does not thereby make God or heaven “homophobic.” If it does not please Archbishop Tutu that homosexual acts are not approved or celebrated in heaven I suppose he does not have to go there. But he cannot simply expect heaven to be on his terms. Heaven is what it is, the fullness of the Kingdom of God and all it values, one of which is Chastity, and opposition to all acts contrary to it.

There is a lamentable tendency today for many Christians to define heaven on their own terms: “Heaven will be a place of pleasure, as I define pleasure. I will be among the company of those I choose, and everything will be on my terms.”

But of course, this is not what heaven is. Heaven is the fullness of the kingdom of God, the fullness of the values of the kingdom of God. Heaven is to be with God himself who is justice and truth, as he has set these forth. Heaven is about things like love of God, the liturgical worship of the Lord, love for the poor, love for my enemy, mercy, forgiveness, and yes, chastity!

Rather than to define what Heaven is for us, it is our work, to learn who God is and what heaven is as God has revealed it, and to begin by his grace to acclimate ourselves for the heaven that really is. Yes, we must be prepared to meet the real God, the biblical God, not some fake god. And we should be prepared to go to the real heaven, not some fake “designer heaven.”

Pillar of truth – We have no better indication of who God really is, what heaven is, and what God really expects of us than the  revealed Word of God, in the Scriptures and the Sacred Tradition of the Church.

Sadly, the larger portion of the Anglican denomination departed from these pillars sometime ago. Scripture is radically reinterpreted so that it often does not mean what the text clearly says. Further,  The ancient biblical wisdom, both in the Old Covenant and the New, along with the apostolic and sacred Tradition have been set aside in favor of modern teachings barely 20 to 30 years old. This sadly is the course that the Anglican denomination, along with many other mainline Protestant denominations have taken.

On the other hand, the sure and certain testimony of the Word of God, about who God really is,  this is where I, and others like me must stand.  I can do no other, for God has revealed no other certain and surer source to know who He is what I must do. If this makes me the Archbishop’s enemy such that he would rather live in Hell than with with me, so be it.

But here I stand, I can do no other, for the Word of the Lord has spoken through his Church and the Sacred Scripture entrusted once and for all to his Church.

Posted on

Setting forth the truth plainly we commend ourselves to every man’s conscience: A Consideration of the Church’s Role in the Public Square

072413In the Office of Readings today we read from 2 Corinthians 4 where St. Paul well describes the work of the Church in the Public square: Setting forth the truth plainly, we commend ourselves to every man’s conscience in the sight of God (2 Cor 4:2). Not a bad description of our posture and practice toward the secular world.

Yet, that is not often the impression many take from our posture. In what I would called a misplaced fear, many think of the Church as trying impose her power and views on others. In much of the heated public debate on the HHS mandate (that the Catholic Church pay for contraceptives, abortifacients, and sterilization) and over gay “marriage,” there is a strain to the conversation, that somehow, the Catholic Church is trying to “force” people to follow what she teaches.

To think that we have such power is fanciful, but the charge comes up a lot and in different forms. Consider the following comments I gleaned from various sources, mainly from the comboxes of several secular papers. These comments are not made up by me. I cut and pasted them into a reference file over the last two years, they are actual quotes of readers. All of them see us as trying to use power to force others to do what we want. (I have added a few responses in Red just because I can’t resist):

  1. Inasmuch as we can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God, everyone should be free to follow their own path as individuals. You are. The Church doesn’t have the power to force you to do anything. But you are going further than “following your own path.” You are asking for legal recognition of something that has never been recognized before (i.e. Same-sex unions). Expect a little push back. Further, the Catholic Church does not only appeal to God and the Bible but also to Natural Law, because we recognize that not everyone sees the Scriptures with the kind of reverence we do.
  2. When it comes to owning a business that accepts public funds and which will employ believers of every stripe as well as non-believers, the owners have no right dictating the choice of others – Actually it is the Government that is dictating choice. In the HHS mandate, only the government has the power here to compel and punish non-compliance, and they are saying that we must give contraceptives free to anyone who asks for them. The “mandate” says that Catholics, and anyone who objects to sterilization, to abortifacients and contraceptives, (for it is not only Catholics), must pay for them whether they like it or not. As for Gay “marriage,” it is once again the Government that is requiring everyone to recognize what has never been recognized before, that same-sex couples are “married.” And, by gosh, if we don’t recognize them and treat them as married then we will be decertified from adoption services and have to stop providing marital health benefits for our married employees (as happened with Catholic Charities). So there IS a lot of forcing going on here, but it isn’t the Church. We don’t have that power, the State does. And frankly that should make everyone sober, even those who don’t agree with us on these specific issues. EVERYONE ought to be mighty concerned when the State seeks to compel people to act against their conscience.
  3. Just one more example why one should never vote for a Roman Catholic politician who would more likely march in lockstep to the dictates of the Church than follow constitution. Whew! Dream on, we have the opposite problem. Very FEW Catholic politicians live their faith when it comes to political agendas. And if they do, they, like anyone else, they have to face the voters every few years. Further, why is it wrong for politicians to follow, say, environmental agendas, or homosexual agendas, or social justice agendas, but it is WRONG for them to follow religiously inspired agendas?Since when do people of faith have no voice or seat at the table in the world of politics? Are we not citizens who have the right to petition the government for redress etc?
  4. This is about the Catholic church (sic) demanding that people who do not have any allegiance to that church or its dogma live by its rules. We don’t have this power. It is the State (and you?) who are instituting that we pay for what we consider wrong. Why should I have to pay for your contraceptives? Why should you simply demand to get them free?
  5. Today, they are gunning for the gays. Next will be your birth control. We don’t have this power. What we are asking is that we not be compelled to pay for things we consider wrong and sinful.
  6. In pushing your definition of marriage on to all other people and churches, you are in fact trying to ensure that Catholic law remains state law. We don’t have this power. As citizens, and for principled reasons rooted in Scripture and Natural Law, we argue that the law that Has ALWAYS been the law in this land, remain unchanged. We have a right, as citizens, to be part of the political process. One side is going to win, right now it looks like the pro-gay -pseudo marriage folks. How would you feel if I said, “You are pushing your definition of marriage and trying to make it State law?” Why don’t we just admit that we both have a right to be in the public square and advocate for what we think is right? I think you’re wrong headed and confused about marriage and your type loves to call me intolerant and bigoted. I’ll see you at the ballot box. Oh! but wait a minute! Here in DC your advocates on the DC Council would not allow a referendum, you try NOT to allow votes on such matters, but use the legal system to impose your views. And, gee, when we do win at the ballot box as we have in several states, your side runs to a judge and tries to overturn the will of the voters. Hmm….who is throwing power around here? Who’s pushing whose definition on whom? Hmm…?
  7. the church will be better off the more that it gives up its hold on political power. What power? If we’re so powerful, why is the moral meltdown so advanced? Again, are you simply striving to say we should have no voice in the political process? We have a right as citizens to try and influence outcomes, just like you. Frankly we haven’t been very successful lately. I’d love to find out where all this political power we theoretically have is hidden.

OK, well you get the point. A LOT of people think we have a lot more power than we do. Frankly it’s laughable to think think the Catholic Church has all this power. We can’t even unify our own believers. I have written before (with love) that unifying Catholics is like herding cats! I would to God that we could really unify around anything. Then we might be a political force to be reckoned with. And as citizens we would have every right to be such a force. But as it is, we are (sadly) a rather divided lot, even on abortion. I can assure you , most Catholic politicians do NOT have a hotline to the Vatican or take even a scintilla of advice from the Pope or Bishops. And even if they accidentally agree with the Pope or the bishops, for most of them, it is because the politics make sense, not that the faith has “compelled” them. No, don’t worry too much about the “power” of the Church.

That said, I have already commented above (in the red remarks) that Catholics, as citizens of the Untied States of America have the same rights as any other citizen to petition the government, to seek to enact laws that reflect our values and concerns. But we have no more or less power or voice than any other citizen of this Land. We, like others, often band together with coalitions. But again, if this is somehow wrong, then why is it not wrong for feminists, or environmentalists, or unions, or advocates of any number of hundred of other causes to do the same? We are Americans with rights. And people of faith have just as much right to be in the public square and the public conversation as any one else.

Some of the commenters in Comboxes, I survey like to recite grievances from the Middle Ages about Church power then etc. Why not leave the 14th Century politics in the 14th Century, and let’s stay in the 21st Century. There was a LOT of bad stuff in the old days. It wasn’t just the Church, governments too were different then. Modern democratic republics were unknown in those days. Today the political landscape is different. And if the Church ever did have all the power (and some of the claims are exaggerated and the Inquisition is often cartoonishly portrayed) that is not the case today. For our purposes we are in the 21st Century West.

Finally, I return to the quote from St. Paul in today’s office that rather well distills what we, as a Church, and as believers, seek to do in the public square of America. More than acquire power (which is not easy in a wide and pluralistic culture), we seek to commend ourselves, and our message to everyone’s conscience. St. Paul says in context,

Rather, renouncing secret and shameful ways; we do not use deception, nor do we distort the Word of God. On the contrary, by setting forth the truth plainly, we commend ourselves to every man’s conscience in the sight of God (2 Cor 4:2)

Yes, frankly we do have vigorous disagreement with secret (and not so secret), and shameful practices. And we will not, in order to be popular or conformed to these times, distort or misrepresent the Word of God. Abortion is wrong. Fornication, adultery, and homosexual acts are wrong. Divorce, and chosen single parenthood, and so called gay “marriage” are wrong. Contraception, sterilization, embryonic stem cell research, euthanasia, wrong, wrong wrong.

But I cannot force you to obey me. Rather I commend myself to your conscience. And even if Scripture will not be acceptable to you, I will have recourse to Natural Law. I, indeed the whole Church, will continue to commend ourselves to your conscience. And even though the gospel is currently “out of season” (cf 2 Tim 4:2) and you laugh at me and call me names like intolerant, bigoted etc., I will continue to commend myself to your conscience.

As long as I live I will speak the truth in love. And however you choose to understand me I will continue to speak. You may wish to call me hateful. I am not. I invite you to conscientiously consider what I say. I cannot command you, so do not fear me. But I do commend myself to your conscience.

I will meet you in the public square, for that is my right as much as yours. But in the end, mandates and forced adherence are not in my power. I commend myself to your conscience, I do not, I cannot, command you.

Those of this world may choose on their own to be pleased or displeased by what we say. As for me, my prayer is and must remain: May the words of my mouth and the meditations of my heart be pleasing to you my God (Psalm 19:14).

Posted on

Have we lost reverence in Church these Days? How can we recover it?

071713In the first reading this morning at Mass there was the familiar story of Moses’ encounter with God at the burning bush on Mount Horeb. Approaching the Theophany, and thus the presence of God Moses received the following instruction:

Remove the sandals from your feet, for the place where you stand is holy ground. I am the God of your father,” he continued, “the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, the God of Jacob. (Ex 3:4-5)

 And here we see an ancient form of reverence. It is interesting that, to my knowledge, Jews no longer use this sign of reverence. But Muslims still do. I remember being outside the Al-Aqsa Mosque on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem and seeing hundred of pairs of shoes lined up on the patio outside. A Muslim would not think to enter the Mosque without first removing his shoes.

The Jews however are very strict in insisting that men, Jewish or not should not go before the Western Wall or pray with heads uncovered, and there are men nearby, at the Wall who enforce the rule strictly and provide carboard-like yarmulkes for men who did not bring one or some other head covering.

Here in America, the thought of taking off ones shoes or being in Church without shoes would be thought of as highly irreverent! And for a man to go into a Church without removing his hat is often scolded by an usher. It would also seem that the Gentile world had this norm since St Paul, though himself a Jew, wrote Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head…A man ought not to cover his head, (1 Cor 11:4,7). He further indicates in the same place that a woman ought to cover her head.

And thus we see that culture has influence on signs of reverence and, while there have been different forms of it here and there, some equivalent of “Remove the sandals from your feet…” has been observed. Until now.

Until now?  Yes, it would seem that there is really no observable and/or agreed upon way in our modern American culture that we “take off our sandals” and show some sort of reverence and acknowledgemnt that we are on holy ground, when we come before the Lord in our parish churches.

It is not just that women have shed veils (sadly I would opine – more on that HERE and HERE). But beyond that, almost no one dresses in any special way for Church these days. “Extreme casual” would seem to be the norm of the day, to look in most parishes. Most people don’t even think to change their clothes for church, there is a “go as you are” mentality. Further, other signs of entering the Church such as sacred silence, and genuflecting are increasingly absent.

It was not always this way. Even in my own short life I remember when going to Mass on Sunday was a formal affair, at least before 1970. As a young boy and teenager I had special Sunday shoes, hard black ones, and would not dream of going to church in jeans or a t-shirt. We were expected to wear pressed trousers, a button down shirt and tie, along with a jacket in the cooler months. The ladies all wore dresses and veils. (See picture of a youth Mass from 1968 above right). Church was a special place, Mass was a sacred occasion. On entering Church we were expected to maintain a sacred silence, and, upon entering, to bless ourselves with Holy Water and genuflect on entering our pew. Silent prayer was expected of one prior to Mass.

These were ways we “removed our sandals” and acknowledged we were on holy ground and before the Presence of the Lord.

Today this seems all but gone. A few “old folks” keep the traditions, and, interestingly, some younger twenty-somes as well! But for the vast majority of Catholics today, at least here in America, there is little visible or tangible equivalent of removing the sandals from our feet.

I will not even argue that ALL the old traditions should return, (even though I would like that). But at least we ought to recover SOME way of signifiying that we are on holy ground and before the presence of the Holy One of Israel, the Lord of glory.

I am aware that I will get some who say all this “stuffiness” will “turn people off.” But of course Mass isn’t just about pleasing people, it is about adoring the Lord who is worthy of our praise and our reverence. I am also aware that some will take the critique I offer here further than I personally think we need to go.

All that is fine. Where exactly to reset the line is debatable, but the bottom line seems to be that there ought to be some culturally appropriate that we fulfill the admonition of God to “Remove your sandals for the ground on which you stand is holy, I am the God of your fathers.”

How say you? Perhaps we can together start a trend (old) trend.

Video: Mass in the 1940s, as artistically remembered. It is a wedding Mass, albeit, but people usually dressed close to this way on Sundays too (perhaps minus the corsages 😉 ), according to old pictures: