Tag: Faith & Current Events

Posted on

Justice for the One and For the Many – A Reflection on the Criminal Justice System and the Teaching of the Catechism

In previous weeks we have discussed the death penalty on this blog and, as you know I am against it and think that we, as Catholics, should be with our Pope and the World’s Bishops who have asked us to stand against it. In this post however, I would like to explore another side of the question of crime and punishment and ask you if you think we have the balance right. For if it be true that we should stand against Capital Punishment (as I think we should), we also need to look closely at the protection of society, and also those within prison systems,  from often dangerous criminals.

To begin the discussion I would like to begin with some personal background.

From 2000-2007, I was pastor in a very rough part of town here in DC. We just called it the “hood,” though the map called us Congress Heights, and Highlands South.  Every week there were shootings. At least once a month, a murder took place on our streets. Two of the murders took place right on Church grounds, one during the school day when our school was in session.

In every case, the perpetrators of these murders had rap sheets a mile long: armed robbery, car theft, selling and possession, attempted murder, actual murder. But they walked our streets. Arrested on very serious charges, they were out in days. When trial finally came, sometimes years later, they had already offended in other ways. When sentence was passed, they served only tiny portions of their sentence and were back out. Nothing, it seemed, would cause a re-evaluation of this revolving door “justice.” And in the hood we lived with fear we shouldn’t have had. We experienced crime we shouldn’t have.

Somewhere it seems that, in the criminal justice system we have lost balance. Hence, I want to raise with you a consideration of justice and well ordered love.

In considering questions of justice, it has been most common in the past 40 years to have the emphasis fall on the rights and needs of the individual prisoner. There is clearly a place for such considerations. Justice cannot always be merely what the majority thinks. But neither can the common good be wholly set aside. This is especially true in matters of public safety. Too often today, very dangerous people are walking our streets. This is neither just nor is it sensible. We may all want to show some leniency from time to time. Severe justice for first time offenders may not always be warranted. But there comes a time when greater charity and justice has to be shown to the public and the common good must outweigh any personal charity we may wish to extend.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church has this to say:

Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. ….The efforts of the state to curb the spread of behavior harmful to people’s rights and to the basic rules of civil society correspond to the requirement of safeguarding the common good. Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict punishment proportionate to the gravity of the offense.

Punishment has the primary aim of redressing the disorder introduced by the offense. When it is willingly accepted by the guilty party, it assumes the value of expiation. Punishment then, in addition to defending public order and protecting people’s safety, has a medicinal purpose: as far as possible, it must contribute to the correction of the guilty party. (CCC # 2265-2266)

It is therefore clear that we do not detain and/or punish to exact revenge. Rather we do so for a twofold purpose: to protect the common good by ending the disorder caused by wrongdoers (what the Catechism calls “redressing” i.e. remedying). And, secondly, for the medicinal purpose of correcting the guilty party insofar as possible.

And herein lies the question: Does the criminal justice system in most of America today keep a proper balance between protecting the common good and the needs and rights of the guilty party? In terms of violent felons, by own experience says, “No.”

Too often the common good is neglected, even wholly set aside in decisions related to criminal justice. Public authority must discover anew its grave duty to the common good and particularly to the lives of others. Good intentions are not enough. Real people get harmed and killed when we get the balance wrong. Ask the families in my old neighborhood who suffered the loss of family and friends at the hands of repeat felons with a track record a mile long.  Ask those who lived in great fear.

The current record of our Criminal Justice System is that we simply do not seem to have the will to keep even very dangerous criminals locked up. They walk away from lengthy sentences after very short times. They usually offend again and we still let them go early from subsequent sentences.

In the popular mind social justice is usually equated with the rights of prisoners. But true social justice cannot forget the common good and must weigh it in the balance with prisoners’ rights.

The common good is not some abstraction. It is about real people. We cannot simply toss the rights of prisoners and accused to the winds. But neither can we simply disregard the common good.  True justice is about balance. Individual rights? Yes. The Common Good? Yes again.

* Here is a tribute to fallen police officers who face many dangers for us every day:

*

Posted on

Mother of Us All – A Brief Pondering of the Question, "What does Mary look like?"

It is a notable fact that our Lord and his Mother lived in a time long before photographs, even at a time, and among a people, where drawings and portraits of people were almost unknown. Also notably absent in the Sacred Scriptures are any details regarding the physical appearances of most Biblical figures, unless a detail is necessary for the story (e.g. Zacchaeus being short, Goliath tall, Leah being less attractive due to her misshapen eyes). But generally there seems to be an almost complete lack of preoccupation with such things in the Biblical narrative. And even when we are told that David was handsome or Bathsheba was beautiful, we are not really told how.

We live in a polar opposite world when it comes to images. Everything is visual, and we are quite obsessed with appearance and looking acceptable and good, and how other people look.

We attach great meaning (for better, but usually for worse) on our physical appearance. We divide out over race, skin tone, hair etc. We also prize thinness and ridicule fatness, we worry if we are tall enough, pretty enough, if our hair is too straight or not straight enough, if we are tan enough or too dark skinned, and when age sets in many head for the cosmetic surgeon.

Instructive! Thus when we wonder as to what Jesus or Mary “looked like,” it may be instructive for us to reflect on why the Lord would have them live in a time and place, where this data would NOT be supplied us. For, in the end, they look like us. And some historical sketch or painting, had one ever been made, would only tend to limit our vision, rather than allow us to identify with them.

To the question what did Mary look like we may garner five possible answers:

  1. None of your business.
  2. Why do you care?
  3. She looks just like you think she looks.
  4. She looks like you, because she is your mother.
  5. She is far more beautiful than you ever imagined (My favorite answer).

But answer four is probably the most helpful when it comes to accepting the diverse ways she is depicted.

Most of us American Catholics see her in very European terms. Historically this may be dubious, by why shouldn’t we see here as looking like us. She is after all our mother.

As I walk though the dozens of chapels in the Basilica of the Immaculate Conception here in Washington, I see her as Chinese, American, Lithuanian, Mexican, Filipino, Korean, African, Lebanese, Irish, Ethiopian, and so on. And why shouldn’t these various Ethnicities  see her as looking like them, she is, after all their mother.

In her various apparitions her look varies too. La Virgen de Guadalupe “La Morena”  (= dark skinned) is surely different than the descriptions we have from other sights such as Fatima or Lourdes. But here too, why can’t the heavenly beauty of Immaculate Mary, so brightly reflective of God’s glory, not refract through the prism of human experience in different colors and ways?

What does Mary look like? She is our Mother, she looks like us. Jesus is our brother (and Lord), he looks like us.

Happy Feast Day

Posted on

The Real St. Nicholas – Not Fat and Not Particularly Jolly

Today is the Feast of St. Nicholas. The real St. Nicholas was nothing close to the St. Nick (Santa Claus) of the modern age. He was a thin curmudgeonly man with a zeal for the Lord that caused flairs of anger. Compromise was unknown to him. The slow transformation of him into “Jolly ole’ Saint Nicholas is a remarkable recasting of him centuries in the making. Some years ago the Washington Post featured an article entitled Poles Apart: Nicholas of Myra; How a 4th-Century Bishop Achieved Fame 1,500 Years Later, With a Whole New Attitude.

Since I had to blog twice yesterday (due to the need to respond to the current Washington Post article on Clergy Sexual Abuse) I thought I might take a break and present excerpts from the article that detail the real St. Nicholas of Myra. It is a very engaging look at the cantankerous Saint who lived through some very tough times.

I am aware that hagiography (the study of the Saints) is sometimes more art than science. I cannot vouch for every detail in the article and would be interested if some of you intrepid hagiographers what to clarify, correct or add to the details given.

The Full Article (which details, somewhat thoroughly, St. Nicholas’ transition to Santa) can be read here: Poles Apart. I have also placed a PDF of the whole article which is more easily printed here: PDF – Poles Apart Nicholas and Nick

Enjoy this excerpt on the real St. Nicholas of Myra (aka Santa):

The year is 325. The place is Nicaea, a small town near the Black Sea in what is now Turkey. Thousands of priests, 318 bishops, two papal lieutenants and the Roman emperor Constantine are gathered to face a looming church crisis…..

One of the churchmen rises to speak. Arius, from the Egyptian city of Alexandria, tells the gathering that Jesus was not divine. He was just a prophet. Suddenly, a second man is on his feet, an obscure, cantankerous bishop named Nicholas. He approaches Arius, fist raised menacingly. There are gasps. Would he dare? He would. Fist strikes face. Arius goes down. He will have a shiner. Nick, meanwhile, is set upon by holy men. His robes are torn off. He is thrown into a dungeon.

Peer down through the bars. Behold the simmering zealot sitting there, scowling, defiant, imprisoned for his uncompromising piety. Recognize his sallow face? No? Well, no reason you should. But he knows you. He’s been to your house many times….

[O]n this holiday we examine the puzzling paradox of Santa Claus. On the one hand, we have the modern Santa, a porcine, jolly man who resides at the North Pole with a woman known only as Mrs. Claus. …

On the other hand, we have the ancient Santa. Saint Nicholas. Paintings show a thin man. He was spare of frame, flinty of eye, pugnacious of spirit. In the Middle Ages, he was known as a brawling saint. He had no particular sense of humor that we know of. He could be vengeful, wrathful, an embittered ex- con….No doubt, Saint Nick was a good man. A noble man. But a hard man.

Nicholas was born in Patara, a small town on the Mediterranean coast, 280 years after the birth of Christ. He became bishop of a small town in Asia Minor called Myra. Beyond that, details of his life are more legend than fact….He became a priest at 19, and bishop in his twenties….Diocletian ruled the Roman Empire; it was the early 300s, and…began the “Great Persecution.”…. Nicholas kept preaching Christianity, and was arrested and tortured for disobeying the new laws. He spent more than a decade in jail. Among his punishments, according to Saint Simeon’s 10th-century history, were starvation and thirst. That is how Santa got skinny…. Twelve years later, AD 312, ….Constantine triumphed. Across the empire, bishops and priests returned to work and Nicholas got out of jail. He tended to local business. He was not pleasant about it. At the time, Myra was a hotbed of Artemis-worship…Nicholas prayed for vengeance, and his prayers were answered. Artemis’s temple crumbled. ” …The priests who lived in Artemis’s temple ran in tears to the bishop. They appealed to his Christian mercy. They wanted their temple restored.….Nicholas was not moved. Prison had left him in no mood for compromise. “Go to Hell’s fire,” he is said to have said, “which has been lit for you by the Devil.”

The Time of Nick In his lifetime, Nicholas crusaded against official corruption and injustice, seeing both as an affront to God. Supposedly, his intervention — through fire-and-brimstone denunciations of corrupt officials — saved at least a half-dozen innocent men from the gallows or the chopping block. He was forgiven for punching Arius and rescued from the dungeon. In the end, his views on the Trinity were vindicated by the adoption of the Nicene Creed, which declares Christ divine. Saint Nick died on Dec. 6. The year could be 326 or 343 or 352, depending whose account you rely on. Why we know the day of the year, but not the year itself, will be explained forthwith…..

……Nicholas of Myra might not seem like the kind of person who relates to kids, and few acts attributed to him involve children. There are two, though neither is exactly the stuff of sugar plums and Christmas stockings. In one tale, widely told, Nicholas secretly delivers three bags of gold to a penniless father. The debtor dad uses the loot as dowries so his three girls do not have to become prostitutes….The second anecdote tells of the time a tavern owner robbed, murdered three children, hiding their remains in pickle barrels. …Fortunately, Saint Nicholas happened to walk through the tavern-keeper’s door….Soon, all three boys, were back home, reeking of pickle juice. What became of the shopkeeper is unrecorded…. By the Middle Ages, Nick had become the patron saint of children, and he had a new gig: gift-giving. Throughout Europe, the legend spread: He delivered trinkets to good kids and twigs to naughty ones. It was an uneasy transition — from curmudgeon to cuddle-bear. ….

🙂 As said above you can click on those links to read the full story of how St. Nicholas of Myra morphed into Santa Claus.

Here’s a Medieval Version of “Jolly old St. Nicholas.” The text is the Introit for the feast of St. Nicholas (Statuit ei Dominus) and translated says: The Lord made unto him a covenant of peace, and made him a prince, that the dignity of the priesthood should be to him forever.

Here’s the Modern Version: 🙂

Posted on

CBS Sunday Morning Report Simplifies as It Scolds the Catholic Church

A CBS Morning News report from Sunday casts a scornful eye on the Church, and proceeds, in ten minutes, to list a series of grievances designed to make us think that most Catholics think the Church is heading “backwards” from the reforms of the 1960s.  Now of course the fact that we don’t pass the requirements assigned by CBS news editors neither alarms or surprises me.

But for the sake of balance some reply ought to be made to the picture of the Church presented in the CBS piece. For while it will be granted that there are some of the faithful who are unhappy with the current “direction” of the Church, there are many, including myself, who are delighted that we are regaining a proper doctrinal and pastoral footing again. Some are happy that we are beginning to discover that being popular and well thought of by the world is not our first mission.

No one is perfectly happy with every aspect of Church life, but how could we be when human beings are in the mix? But, again, for the record, there are many who are satisfied with the overall movement of the Church back to her fundamental identity. Many too are pleased that there is a growing acceptance that we (along with Jesus) are destined to be a “sign of contradiction.” We’re just not going to fulfill the world’s expectations and the news media’s checklist of requirements to be “acceptable.”

In the video below you will see a number of issues trotted out that that supposedly divide Catholics and cause them concern. While there is no time to comment on the whole video a few thoughts come to mind.

1. First that there is division among Catholics is granted (though not to the degree that the report indicates). In a Church of a billion members, it is not hard to find a few disaffected souls. But the premise seems to be that if there is division, the Church is therefore doing something wrong. For the record, Jesus caused divisions, and got crucified for it. That points to human sinfulness, not that Jesus did something wrong. That some are unhappy with certain Church policies and dogmatic teachings, does not mean that the Church is wrong either. Whenever human beings gather in numbers more than one, there are going to be some divisions, it is the human condition.

2. There is a lot of simplification in the lead example about St Joseph’s Hospital in Phoenix. We are told that the tragic abortion that took place there was “a choice either to lose the baby or to lose the mother and the baby.” But that was not really what happened. The directly intended choice was to end the life of the baby.

We are told that the mother’s high blood pressure was caused by the pregnancy and the only way to end what was becoming life threatening was to abort. I am not a doctor and so must stipulate the medical facts, but I am surprised to hear that high blood pressure is caused by pregnancy (a natural condition of a human female). I suppose it could be aggravated by the pregnancy. At any rate, I admit that these rare cases present serious difficulties for both doctors and moral theologians.

But the Church is not crudely approaching such cases. There are the rare cases of something called “double effect” wherein the Church accepts that a certain treatment, say the removal of a highly cancerous womb, my result in the death of a child in that womb. But the key point is that the death of the child is not intended and will be avoided if possible.

In no way may we directly intend or cause the death of another human being to save another. And that is what happened here, the child was killed to save the mother. It was not that a certain treatment meant to stave off the High Blood pressure indirectly and unintentionally caused the death of the child (which would be a double but unintentional effect). Rather the child was directly and intentionally killed.

We do not live in a time that appreciates nuance, especially when ideology is present. However, such distinctions are important and Catholic moral theologians are careful in such manners. We do not blithely disregard the life of the mother, and there are circumstances where, on account of double-effect, treatment given to a mother which indirectly results in the loss of the child can be accepted. The image of the Church as simply backward and uncaring is not a fair characterization. But what was chosen here was to end one life to save another.

3. The news report makes the dialogue between Bishop Olmstead and St Joseph hospital seem very short and perfunctory. But the discussions between the Bishop and the hospital were quite lengthy. Only toward the end of the report are we informed that the hospital refused to admit any wrong doing, and insisted it would reach a similar decision in such cases in the future. Only then Did the Bishop regretfully have to declare it to be no longer Catholic.

4. The report also makes it seem as though the Bishop excommunicated Sr. Margaret in a punitive sort of way. Rather, no, it would seem that she had excommunicated herself automatically. While Canon lawyers dispute at times what it means to procure abortion, and thereby by incur automatic (laetae sententiae) excommunication, it would seem that Sr. admitted that she “procured” abortion. The Bishop then informed her the automatic excommunication applied. We are only told much later in the piece that she has been restored to communion, which can be done in the context of a good confession, either with the bishop or a priest to whom such faculties have been granted. Sister has apparently availed herself of that. The priest they consulted, Fr Thomas Doyle, whom they call a “canonist,” misspeaks by calling the excommunication cruel. As a Canonist, he should know better, that the excommunication is automatic and hence cruelty would not seem a proper word. Further it is an excommunication that can be lifted and has been.

And so on for the CBS report. Like most secular media, they miss most of the nuance, over-simplify and don’t really even make an attempt to show the other side. Even in interviewing Bishop Olmstead, it is clear to me, as a viewer, that most of what he said must have ended up on the cutting room floor. They have him state the facts and his conclusion, but his reasons seem largely edited to this viewer.

In the end we have CBS scolding the Catholic Church for not being what CBS thinks we should be. But the last time I checked, the purpose of the Church is not to be up to date and follow secular opinion. I think we generally answer to a higher authority who has already been pretty clear about the fundamental moral issues of our time.

If one seeks a denomination that is willing to be more in agreement with modern secular views, there are a good number of them out there. Funny though, they are even more challenged to find members than the Catholic Church. Time will prove where wisdom lies.

Posted on

What Does It Mean to Be Baptized With the Holy Spirit?

In the final lines of yesterday’s Gospel, John the Baptist says,

I have baptized you with water; he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit (Mk 1:8).

Matthew and Luke add: and with fire.

We ought to consider, What does it mean to be baptized with the Holy Spirit (and with fire)? In the first place we must be careful to indicate, right from the beginning, that Baptism in the Holy Spirit is not distinct, different, or later than our reception of the Sacrament of Baptism. Rather it is the unfolding and deepening experience of what the Sacrament of Baptism (and Confirmation) have effected in us.

In a strictly theological sense,  John the Baptist is distinguishing his Baptism, which was merely a washing that signified repentance, from the Baptism of Christ, which actually brings forgiveness and the bestows the very life of God, and all the graces of this new life to the believer. We are not merely washed of our sins in the Sacrament of Baptism, we are made new, and the seed of God’s very own life, love and grace are sown in us, to grow. We are actually sanctified and made new.

Some of the Fathers of the Church have this to say:

Theophylus – The baptism of John had not remissions of sins, but only brought men to penitence. He preached therefore the baptism of repentance, that is, he preached that to which the baptism of penitence led, namely, remission of sins, that they who in penitence received Christ, might receive Him to the remission of their sins.

Jerome – For what is the difference between water and the Holy Ghost, who was borne over the face of the waters? Water is the ministry of man; but the Spirit is ministered by God.

Bede – Now we are baptized by the Lord in the Holy Ghost, not only when in the day of our baptism, we are washed in the fount of life, to the remission of our sins, but also daily by the grace of the same Spirit we are inflamed, to do those things which please God

The Catechism of the Catholic Church says,

According to the Apostle Paul, the believer enters through Baptism into communion with Christ’s death, is buried with him, and rises with him: Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life. (Rom 6:3-4) The baptized have “put on Christ.” (Gal 3:27) Through the Holy Spirit, Baptism is a bath that purifies, justifies, and sanctifies (1 Cor 6:11). Hence Baptism is a bath of water in which the “imperishable seed” of the Word of God produces its life-giving effect. (CCC 1227-1228)

This quote from the Catechism then moves us beyond the merely Theological answer to the question, “What does it mean to be baptized with the Holy Spirit?”  and opens also, the “experiential” question: What is it “like” to be baptized with the Holy Spirit?

Experientially, It means knowing what we have received in Baptism and Confirmation. But here, “knowing” does not mean mere intellectual knowing (οἴδα – odia in the Greek New Testament). Rather it means experiential knowing (γινώσκo – ginosko in the Greek New Testament). It is one thing to “know about” God and to be able to pass a religion test. But to be Baptized with the Holy Spirit is to “know” the Lord, personally, deeply, intimately. It is to be in a life changing, transformative relationship with the Lord. It is experiential faith.

Too many people are satisfied with with living their faith by inference, rather than by experience. In other words, they are content to go along saying what they heard some one else say. “Jesus is Lord and risen from the dead” because my mother says so, or my preacher says so, (or even), the Bible says so. All of this is fine, for faith first comes by hearing. But there comes a point when YOU have to say so, because you personally know it to be true.

And this is what it means to be Baptized with the Holy Spirit and with fire. It is to be able to say, “In the laboratory of my own life I have tested the Word of God and found it to be true. I have personally met and know the Lord, I know Him for myself.”

In other words, it is having faith come alive! Faith that is real, tested and certain. It is knowledge that is personal. It is to be a first hand witness to the power of Jesus Christ to change my life, for I am experiencing it in the laboratory of my very own life. He is changing and transforming me. I am seeing sins put to death and wonderful graces come alive. I am more serene, confident, loving, generous and chaste. I am more forgiving, patient, trusting and patient. I love the poor more, and I am less attached to this world. My prayer is becoming deeper as I sense his presence and power in my life. Yes, God is working in my life and He is real. This is my testimony. What is yours?

But this is what it means, experientially, to be baptized with the Holy Spirit (and with fire).

And this is also at the heart of evangelization. How are you going to convert anybody if you’re not convinced yourself? Parents, you want your kids to go to Church? Great, and proper. But why do you go? Because it’s Church law? Alright, fine, but shouldn’t there be a deeper reason? To be Baptized with the Holy Spirit is to go to Mass and make the Christian walk because you know and love Jesus Christ yourself, and you want to bring your children into that living, powerful and life transforming experience of the Lord in prayer, the Mass, the Liturgy, and the Sacraments. That’s what you’re after. And that’s what it means to be baptized in the Holy Spirit.

Pay attention to these word of St. John the Baptist. He, through the Holy Spirit, is teaching us about the “normal Christian life,” which is to be alive, joyful, confident, serene and thrilled at what God is doing in my life, at to know (not just know about) the Lord. “I baptize you with water, BUT HE, will baptize you with the Holy Spirit” And he will light a fire in your life, a fire that never dies away, but that grows in intensity as it transforms your very self.

Let he who has ears to hear, heed what the Spirit is saying. Baptism is not a tedious ritual, it is a transformative reality.

Photo Credit: Yousuf Karsh, 1962, The Books These are the Sacraments (By Bishop Fulton J Sheen).

Here is Father Francis Martin on the Baptism in the Holy Spirit.

Posted on

Celebrating the Spirituals: Sober but Joyful

I’ve often been impressed at the capacity of the Old African American Spirituals to treat of serious matters in a clear yet almost joyful way. This is true even of very serious concepts like sin and judgment. Look at some of the creative lines all from different spirituals:

I would not be a sinner, I’ll tell you the reason why. I’m afraid my Lord might call my name and I wouldn’t be ready to die.

Some go to Church for to sing and shout, before six months they’s all turned out!

Everybody talkin’ ’bout heaven aint a goin’ there, Oh my Lord!“

Where shall I be when the first Trumpet sounds, Oh where shall I be when it sounds so loud, when it sounds so loud as to wake up the dead, Oh where shall be when it sounds. How will it be with my poor soul, Oh Where Shall I be?

Better watch my brother how you walk on the cross! Your foot might slip and your soul get lost!

God gave Noah the rainbow sign, no more water but the fire next time!

The last one was a gloss on 2 Peter 3 and all of them are deeply scriptural and serious appeals to the human soul but they do so in a way that is creative. They get you tapping your foot and invite you to a joyful consideration of the need to repent before it’s too late.

Given all the reticence to discuss the four last things (death, judgment, heaven and hell) songs like these may help to re-open the door to necessary conversations between preacher and congregation, parents and their children. They are a valuable resource. The lines above can be found in the following songs listed in the same order as the quotes.

  1. Jesus is a Rock in a Weary Land (as well as a number of old spirituals)
  2. Ezekiel Saw the Wheel
  3. I Got Shoes
  4. Where Shall I Be?
  5. Ezekiel Saw the Wheel
  6. Didn’t it Rain Children!?

I want to conclude with a creative spiritual about the Last Judgment that is featured in the video below. Note that it is rich in Biblical references, it is joyful, a toe tapper and makes a serious point along with a wish: “In That Great Gettin’ Up Mornin Fare You Well!” First the text (with phonetic Spelling) and then the video:

I’m Gonna tell ya ’bout da comin’ of da judgment
Der’s a better day a comin’,
Fare thee well, fare thee well
–
Chorus:In dat great gettin’ up mornin’,
Fare thee well, fare thee well
In dat great gettin’ up mornin’,
Fare thee well, fare thee wellOh preacher fold yo’ bible,
For dat last soul’s converted,
Fare thee well, fare thee well
–
Blow yo’ trumpet Gabriel,
Lord, how loud shall I blow it?
Blow it right and calm and easy,
Do not alarm all my people,
Tell dem all come to da judgment,
Fare thee well, fare thee well
–
Do you see dem coffins burstin,
do you see dem folks is risin’
Do you see dat fork of lightenin’,
Do you hear dat rumblin’ thunder,
Fare thee well, fare thee well
Do you see dem stars a fallin’,
Do you see da world on fire,
Fare thee well, fare thee well

      –

Do you see dem Saints is risin’,
Fare thee well, fare thee well
See ’em marchin’ home for heaven,
Fare thee well, fare thee well

Fare thee well po’r sinners, fare thee well, fare thee well
Fare thee well po’r sinners, fare thee well, fare thee well!

There are many good version of this out on You tube I have picked this one because the words are easiest to hear. Enjoy!

Posted on

Best Advent Hymn

I have published on this Hymn before but want to post on it again at the beginning of Advent in hopes that a few of you who have the influence and ability may see that this hymn in used in your parishes for Advent at some point.

For my money the best Advent hymn ever written is Veni Redemptor Gentium (Come Redeemer of the Nations) written by St. Ambrose in the 4th Century.

One of the beautiful things about the ancient Latin Hymns is how richly theological they are. Not content to merely describe the event in question, they give sweeping theological vision and delve into the more hidden mysteries of each event.

So here we are beginning Advent and Jesus is coming, get ready! Well yes, but he is not just coming, he is redeeming, dying, rising, ascending and reigning at the Father’s Right Hand! But how can we get all that into an Advent Hymn? Well, just below you can read the text and see how.

Full vision – But for now ponder the theological point that hymns like this make. And it is this: that no act of God can merely be reduced to the thing in itself. Everything God does is part of a sweeping master plan to restore all things in Christ, to take back what the devil stole from us! Too often we see the events of our redemption in a disconnected sort of way, but it is all really one thing, and the best theology connects the dots. It is not wrong for us to focus on one thing or another, but we must not forget it is all one thing in the end.

Without this reminder, we can develop a kind of myopia (a limited vision) that over-emphasizes some aspect of redemption and thus harms the rest by a lack of balance. In the 1970s and 80s we had all resurrection all the time, but no passion or death.

Christmas too has its hazards as we get rather sentimental about the “baby Jesus” but miss other important aspects of his incarnation. The passion and death are present in his birth in homeless poverty, the swaddling clothes, the flight into Egypt and so forth. The Eucharist is evident in his birth at Bethlehem (House of Bread) and his being laid in a manger (feed box for animals). His glory as God and his ultimate triumph are manifest in the Star overhead and the Angels declaration of glory! You see it is all tied together and the best theology connects the dots.

So with that in mind I present you to this wonderful Advent hymn so seldom sung in our Catholic Parishes. It can be sung to any Long Meter tune but is usually sung to its own melody (Puer Natus – see video below). I give here only the English translation but the PDF you can get by clicking here: ( VENI REDEMPTOR GENTIUM) contains also the Latin text. I think the poetic translation reprinted here is a minor masterpiece of English literature and hope you’ll agree. Enjoy this sweeping theological vision of the mystery of advent caught up into the grand and fuller vision of redemption.

Among the theological truths treated in this brief hymn are these: His title as Redeemer, his virgin birth, his inclusion of the Gentiles, his sinlessness, his two natures but one person, his incarnation at conception, His passion, death, descent into hell, ascension, his seat at the Father’s right hand, his divinity and equality with the Father, his healing and sanctification of our humanity so wounded by sin, his granting us freedom and eternal life, his renewing of our minds through the light of faith, his opening of heaven to us.

Not bad for seven verses! St. Ambrose, Pray for us! And now the hymn:

Come, thou Redeemer of the earth,
Come testify thy virgin birth:
All lands admire, all times applaud:
Such is the birth that fits our God.
–
Forth from his chamber goeth he,
That royal home of purity,
A giant in twofold substance one,
Rejoicing now his course to run.
–
The Virgin’s womb that glory gained,
Its virgin honor is still unstained.
The banners there of virtue glow;
God in his temple dwells below.
–
From God the Father he proceeds,
To God the Father back he speeds;
Runs out his course to death and hell,
Returns on God’s high throne to dwell.
–
O Equal to thy Father, thou!
Gird on thy fleshly mantle now;
The weakness of our mortal state
With deathless might invigorate.
–
 
Thy cradle here shall glitter bright,
And darkness breathe a newer light,
Where endless faith shall shine serene,
And twilight never intervene.
–
All laud, eternal Son, to thee
Whose advent sets thy people free,
Whom with the Father we adore,
And Holy Ghost, for evermore.
–

This video gives you an idea of what the hymn tune for Veni Redemptor Gentium sounds like. The words in this version are slightly different but the hymn tune is perfect. Try not to dance as it is sung. You can find the melody for this hymn tune in the hymn tune index of most hymnals. This hymn tune is called “Puer Natus.” The words to this hymn however can be sung to any Long Meter (LM) hymn tune.

Posted on

Who is a Threat to Whom? More Attacks to Religious Freedom and the Real Purpose of the First Amendment

A couple of items have appeared in the news which, when juxtaposed, go a long way to show just who the real threat is in the Church/State debate of recent decades. I’d like to excerpt these stories and make some comments. But first, we do well to recall the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The part that concerns us here are the first two clauses, the establishment clause and the free exercise clause.

It will be noted that the oft repeated phrase, “separation of church and state” does not occur here and it occurs nowhere in the U.S. Constitution. Such a phrase is an interpretation of the First Amendment and is used by most moderns increasingly to mean that religious expression has no place in the public square or in any Government sponsored or affiliated setting. Of course this is a novel idea and any reading of history up until the most recent of times finds such a radical notion almost wholly lacking in public discourse.

Clearly the “establishment clause” forbids the State to endorse as its own official Church any particular faith, or sectarian denomination. But the same amendment forbids the State to act in such a way as to prohibit the free exercise of religion.

As written the Amendment seems more aimed at protecting the church and citizens from the power of the State to either pressure a particular religious observance, or forbid the same.

Many moderns however see the First Amendment as protecting the State and citizens from religious influence of any sort. Historically this represents a shift and, I would argue, a misinterpretation of the purpose of the First Amendment. Ultimately it is not the State that needs protection, it is the Church and the religiously observant who need freedom, both from coercion, and forbiddence.

Some also misuse and, I would argue, misinterpret the First Amendment to mean that the Church and faith should have absolutely no influence in open society, and that the government should somehow protect them from having to experience the annoyance of any public religious expression, or practice. Further, that the religiously observant have no right to be active in the political process and that government should utterly ignore all religious points of view, simply because they are religious.

But the religiously observant have just as much a right to free speech and to petition the Government as any other group. That some find our presence annoying or objectionable is quite beside the point. I, as everyone, find many points of view annoying and objectionable. But that does not give me a basis to demand that they be ejected from the public square simply for that. And neither do the religiously observant lose their First Amendment rights merely because some find us an annoyance to their secular views.

In the end, the First Amendment exists to enhance and protect free speech and religious expression, not hinder it. Further the amendment is an action on the State and a limit to its power to act. It is the Church, and the religiously observant, who are protected. To the degree that there can be no establishment of a State Religion, secularists are also protected, but they are not and cannot be protected from any religious influence in the public square.

And this background leads to a couple of stories in the news recently that illustrate the debate and what the real threat ultimately is. (My remarks are in red).

Here is an excerpt from an MSNBC and AP story

Rhode Island’s governor said Tuesday that lawmakers upset with his decision to call the blue spruce erected in the Statehouse a “holiday tree” instead of a “Christmas tree” should focus their energy on feeding the poor.

The Governor’s comment on feeding the poor is insulting, and sidesteps the fact that the Legislature had voted last year, when a similar controversy came up, that the tree should be termed by its traditional name: “Christmas Tree.” Hence the Governor is ignoring the directive of the duly elected and empowered to Legislature. So there is more to the story than his response indicates.

According to Gov. Lincoln Chafee, calling the tree a “holiday tree” instead of a “Christmas tree” is in keeping with Rhode Island’s founding in 1636 by religious dissident Roger Williams as a haven for tolerance, where government and religion were kept separate.

Tolerance it would seem, for the Governor, is for everyone but Christians who had better shut up about Christ at Christmas time.

Chafee insists he’s just respecting the state’s history as a place respectful of all religions. The colony’s hands-off policy toward religion quickly attracted sects that had been persecuted elsewhere. Rhode Island boasts both the nation’s first Baptist church and the oldest surviving Jewish synagogue.

Fine, but the usual way of handling such things is to allow various expressions. For example, even here in crazy Washington, the display at the ellipse features a Christmas tree, a Nativity set, a large Jewish Menorah (Chanukah lights), a Yule Log, I have even seen some commemorations of the Winter Solstice (Druids?).

As a Christian, I do not insist that the Menorah be renamed a “Holiday Lampstand” or that the Yule Log (with its roots in European paganism) be called a holiday log, or that those who celebrate a solstice event must call it a “Holiday Sundown Hoedown”  That would all be silly. And the Governor is also being silly and selective.

I can understand (though not agree with) secularists who would like any and all religious displays to disappear from government buildings. But let them engage the political process like any other group. Most High Court decisions do not agree that displays on Government lawns and public squares amount to an establishment of religion. But let the secularists get politically active if they want to try an influence public policy and work their wishes through the legislatures. We too will do the same.

But Meanwhile, a Christmas tree, so called and ordered so named by the elected legislators is no real threat to anyone, especially when other displays are allowed. It may annoy some, but freedom from annoyance is not a constitutional right or something the Government can or should protect everyone from.

But here IS a real threat to the first Amendment and summarized in an article at the Cardinal Newman Society

The monks of Belmont Abbey College sued (HHS) because the government left them no choice. The government is forcing these devout monks to purchase certain drugs for their students and employees, in violation of their religious convictions. For example, the government now requires the college to purchase Plan B (the “morning-after pill”) and ella (the “week-after pill”) for their students. These drugs likely cause abortions, which is a grave sin to the monks. It is one thing for the government to decide it should distribute these drugs itself, which of course is not part of this new law. But it is quite another for the government to mandate that religious Americans with conscientious objection purchase these drugs and participate in their distribution.

The law also forces the college to pay for “related education and counseling” about these drugs. The monks may preach to their students against abortion and contraception on Sunday morning, but on Monday the feds will make the college pay for a counselor to send the exact opposite message to its students. The First Amendment forbids this type of forced speech and burden on religious exercise.

We have detailed here before the mounting threats to Religious Freedom in this country (Just click in the “religious liberty” tag below). For all the talk in recent decades about what a terrible threat religious expression is to the so called “separation of Church and State,” the real threat comes from the government, not the Church. For the government has the power to coerce by fining, penalizing, disqualifying and decertifying Church and religious run institutions who do not tow the line in some of the government’s favorite social stances such as abortion, gay “marriage” and so forth. As can be seen, once again, the Church must go to court to defend our right not to be coerced to pay for and endorse things we consider immoral.

Such threats are mounting and, even should we win some of these cases, we will not win them all.  Religious freedom will gradually erode. And even when we do win, the sheer number and complexity of these cases presents an enormous financial and legal burden on the Church, which is having to fight on dozens of fronts in jurisdictions across the country at the Federal, State and local level.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.