The Christian basis for human social progress – Part 2

How did Judaism and Christianity lead to the philosophic framework that enables Western democracy and social and economic freedom?

This is part two of a series in which I describe how Christian philosophy led Western society to the basic fundamentals of modern liberal thinking on human dignity and rights; including the idea that government or the "ruling classes" have a duty serve the people, rather than the other way around. I will also show that the idea of social, economic and technological progress is also based upon Christian ideals. It is important for so-called progressive thinkers to recognize where these values came from, for if they hope to sustain these cultural values they would do well not to attack the free practice or discussion of the Christian ideals upon which they rest.

To support this assertion of the role of Christian ideas, I must show is that there is something unique about Judaic and Christian beliefs or experience that set them apart from other human cultures; and that those unique elements are directly related to the values and ideas that have won the allegiance of self-proclaimed enlightened liberal humanists.

I listed in Part 1 four values that seem to underpin modern, progressive philosophy:

1. Individual human dignity and equality under the law based upon that dignity
2. Basic rights of the individual to self-determination in their life and property
3. The belief that social, economic and technological improvement (progress) is possible and good
4. That humans have a moral value — or even an imperative — to work for progress, not just in our own life, but in the lives of others

Individual human dignity and equality under the law
Today, in modern Western civilization it is largely agreed (although not always practiced) that each human being is worthy of some basic standard set of rights. Implicit in this is the acknowledgement that all people share a certain dignity. In fact, recent history has been a journey to expand the depth and scope of those human rights, and to codify them into law. These laws represent the power of the state, mobilized to protect the rights of individuals. This is fundamentally different from the concept in other ancient and modern civilizations which have held that individuals are to be mobilized to protect the power of the state (acknowledging that in most cases “the state” means the ruling class).

Throughout ancient history, and continuing in non-Western societies today, “The State” is usually represented by a small group who wields power, frequently in support of a monarch or dictator. Everyone else is relegated to a subclass that is at the disposal of the ruling class. Even in ancient Greece, a society that we think of as the birthplace of democracy, the most important duties were those owed by the individual citizen to the polis (city-state). Plato clearly espouses this view in The Republic. And the civil law was designed to protect the government and society as a whole. The idea of the state taking steps to protect individual freedom and civil rights had not occurred to anyone we know of in any society — except among the ancient Hebrews and their cultural successors.

The Hebrews received a law that applied to all equally. It did not afford special rights to the ruling class that trumped the rights of the least in the society. Quite the contrary. Unique in the history of civilization, the Hebrew law placed a duty upon the society for the welfare of the weakest of the individual members (e.g. widows and orphans) and even extended that duty to welcome and respect non-members (the stranger or sojourners). Rulers were seen as stewards responsible to God for the care of His people. This can be seen in the Biblical history of the rulers of Israel, frequently confronted by prophets speaking in God’s name, being taken to task for ignoring their responsibility as stewards.

This was remarkable at a time when rulers exercised absolute power over both civic and religious life, and the institutions of both were used by the elite ruling class at the expense of everyone else. It was in the new and unique cultural system described in the Old Testament that we see everyone afforded equal standing under the law. Incidentally the same principles established a “Separation of Church and State” for the first time. Just as the rulers in Israel were given authority by God to serve all the people, those same rulers served only a civic role. Their role was separate from — and did not overlap — the role of the religious class of priests and Levites. This separation of duties between the civic leaders and the religious leaders, all of whom served the people, was ingrained in the Hebrew culture and was seen as strange by outsiders. Evidence of this separation is seen in the rabbinic traditions surrounding the Ten Commandments and the two tablets upon which they were written. The commandments were said to be divided into two groups — the duties to God (religious duties) were expressed in the first 3, written on one tablet. The duties to all other people (civic) were written on the second tablet.

There is certainly no historical or biological reason for such ideas to emerge. Especially to an “enlightened” Darwinian, it makes no sense to espouse equal rights to all people based upon some philosophical notion of equal dignity. To them, “rights” only follow strength, power and success. "Might makes right" and power is the only source of dignity. But it was the notion of an equal dignity of everyone “born of woman” (created by God) that stands as the lynchpin of this whole system of societal protection of individual human rights. To paraphrase the book of Job, everyone comes into this world equally naked and all will depart without a stitch; so everything that anyone has is a gift of God. With this view, it is impossible to accept a system of stratified rights based upon power.

So why do the modern progressives denigrate — and even attack — the philosophic pillars holding up this view of human dignity? We’ll answer that later on in Part 3.

Potential for Human Progress
What is perhaps the primary philosophical hallmark of what we call “Western Civilization” and modern liberal thinking is the belief in human progress. Many of today’s liberal thinkers characterize themselves as “progressives,” holding up the idea of progress as a keystone of their outlook on life. It would probably surprise many of them to find that the optimistic view of human potential is a direct legacy of Christianity. Judaism broke from the ancient concept of humanity trapped in endless cycles driven by capricious fates, demons and deities. The Hebrews were the first people to view themselves as a people on a journey. Instead of repeating endless cycles, they were making progress on a linear pilgrimage through history (see Thomas Cahill’s book Gifts of the Jews). But the journey was still largely a journey of the people as a whole. It was Jesus, the Christ or Messiah (anointed one), that built upon the Jewish concept of individual dignity (discussed above) to emphasize the individual’s responsibility to follow a path of righteousness to advance the coming of the kingdom on earth as a prelude to the kingdom of heaven.

St. Paul and the early Christian Fathers further developed this theology of human progress. Unlike Judaism (and later Islam) which dwelt upon their scriptures and history in terms of legal frameworks of the past to be consulted to navigate the present, Christianity was distinctly forward-looking, shaped primarily by a view of the present as a prelude to a future filled with hope, enlightened by faith. (see St. Paul, I Cor. 13:9; St. Augustine, City of God, Book 22, ch. 24)

The Christian view of a world enlightened by the spreading Gospel, with believers serving as stewards of God’s gifts, enabled them to escape the doldrums of a life as a pawn of fate in an endless cycle of destiny. Instead they embraced a hope-filled future of change and innovation. Just as Christianity assumed a distinctly developmental view of theology, it also encouraged a developmental spirit in daily life. In his book The Victory of Reason, Rodney Stark traces the blossoming of innovations in farming, animal husbandry, transportation, commerce, trade and technology in Europe to the adoption of Christian ideals into the popular culture of the Western Roman Empire. Although Stark points out that Christian ideals and idealism were necessary for this to happen, alone they were not sufficient. He cites two other factors present in Europe that made the blossoming of Western civilization possible. Without the other two — small political units and diverse, well-matched interest groups — other Christian areas remained stuck in ancient cultural patterns of tyranny and class struggle.

From its beginning, Christian theology developed continuously. In the Middle Ages, led by Thomas Aquinas, theological exploration naturally led to similar exploration of the natural world. The founding of universities came from this growing culture of education and inquiry. It was the same culture of inquiry that would lead to the so-called “scientific revolution” of the 16th Century. It is well known that the great scientists of that age, from Copernicus and Galileo, to Newton, were men of faith driven to understand the world as a way to better appreciate its Creator. Even the modern secular observer Alfred North Whitehead acknowledged in his 1925 Lowell Lecture at Harvard that “science rose in Europe because of widespread faith in the possibility of science … derived from medieval theology.” He recognized that modern science could not emerge from the cultures of Greece, China or Islam.

We see that the modern list of progressive values and virtues only make sense within a context of the Judeo-Christian ethic of the individual’s dignity as a child of God. And the idea that social progress is possible and worth pursuing is not found as a universal human value. It has only emerged in a culture that accepts the uniquely Christian-based premises that what an individual does matters beyond the immediate results. But the moral assumptions of Christianity have been so deeply imbued into Western Culture during its centuries of development that they can easily be ignored by those who wish to ignore them. And yet, any intellectually honest assessment must recognize that the liberal values that Western Culture brings to the rest of the world are ultimately rooted in a set of moral imperatives that cannot be separated from their Judeo-Christian religious context — to work for progress, not just in our own life, but in the lives of others.

The greatest danger to human progress today is that modern thinkers have started to view “liberal values” as self sustaining and have jettisoned the foundation of religious heritage that supports them. The modern attacks on the beliefs and institutions that nurtured the progressive advance of human development over the past 1500 years, serve to weaken the hold of those values on the culture. And without them the culture is free to fall, once again, into the ethic of other civilizations in which “Might is Right,” and law is used to enslave a lower class in service to the “State” (i.e. the ruling class).

This scenario would be considered horrible to the average Westerner. Why would anyone who embraces the liberal ideas of equality, human rights and human progress take actions that would hasten such an outcome? This is the question we will attempt to answer in Part 3.

News Item

I came across this AP article by Larry McShane in the local newspaper the other day. It got me thinking: Why are the big crime families of the Cosa Nostra (a.k.a. "the Mafia" and "the Mob") gradually going out of business?

My guess is that, when it comes to Organized Crime, it is becoming more and more difficult to compete with the Government.

Welcome, Blue Blazer!

The new post below is presented by a guest contributor.

The Christian basis for human social progress – Part 1

Progressive zealots bite the hand that feeds them

Many who claim to be devoted to the ideals of human progress are unknowingly chipping away at the very foundation upon which those ideals rely. As anti-religious zealots attack all public acknowledgement of any principle or symbol that is tied to religion, they are undermining the philosophic underpinnings that allow them the freedoms they take so much for granted.

A couple years ago (2003) a young man filed a lawsuit against the city where I live, Everett, Wash., to force the removal of a stone monument that depicted the Ten Commandments. The monument is a 6-foot, engraved granite slab that stands near the entrance to a city office building. It was paid for and placed there in 1959 by a local fraternal organization. See news story.

The young man, Jesse Card, seemed to be arguing that, because the Ten Commandments represent the religious traditions of Jews and Christians, the monument serves to promote those religions and, by being on public property, violates the constitutional prohibition on government establishment of religion. The arguments in this and other such cases focus on the basic principals of individual autonomy established in the U.S. Constitution (1788) and Bill of Rights (1791).

Of course the idea that individual freedom could not be trumped by monarchs or states was not invented in America. The Magna Carta limited the power of the English king, basing those limits on the notion that the law applies to all, due to the equal dignity of the individual under God. Again, this concept of kings being subject to higher laws was not new in the Christian West. From Constantine to Charlemagne, monarchs had humbled themselves before the God of David and Moses.

It is, in fact, the Law of Moses that began the revolution that gives the young man in Everett the right to free speech, to sue the government, to observe his own religion or no religion at all. The Hebrew innovation that would help shape Western law and politics is the idea that even Moses was not above the Law that bears his name. Even King David was culpable under Hebrew law for his transgressions. This was a radical departure from all ancient civilizations for whom the ruler was the law and “might made right.” It is still a radical idea in non-Westernized nations. Why? Because without the cultural influence of Christian thought, it does not occur to the human mind.

The irony of the lawsuit in Everett was that the limited view of the monument as a religious symbol seemed to blind this zealot for individual rights to its much larger significance as a symbol of human rights that transcends the whims of individuals to control the freedoms of others. For unless there is an acknowledgement that ALL individuals are equal under a higher law, then the way is open for an elite class of individuals to claim sovereignty over everyone else. Our system of law and justice can only respect all equally because it requires all individuals to extend equal respect to everyone else. And those concepts come from where? The law of Moses, symbolized by the Ten Commandments.

I might point out as an aside that the concept of division of church and state can be seen in the ancient Jewish and Christian tradition of showing the commandments related to our duty to God on one tablet and those related to our duty to other people on the second tablet. Those tablets are very rich symbols that the basic concepts of liberalism are not modern innovations, but are rooted in a unique ancient innovation.

Mr. Card stirred up a great deal of vitriol by those who interpreted his lawsuit as an attack on their religion and values. Their response was to condemn his action as anti-Christian bigotry. I thought that was an unfortunate reaction. I do not know what Mr. Card’s real motives were, but I will take him at his word that it was to protect individual liberty as demanded by our Constitution. I felt that the best argument against his action was that it was internally inconsistent to defend one liberty, guaranteed in one document, by dismissing the philosophic pillar holding up that liberty by seeking to drive all symbols of its origin from the public square.

This episode is just one example of the so-called progressives battling against all appearances of religious symbols and concepts in public in the name of basic human rights principles, without realizing that by doing so, they are undermining the very foundation of those principles.

Before going any further, it is important to articulate some of the key progressive ideals we are talking about:

• Individual human dignity and equality under the law based upon that dignity
  
• Basic rights of the individual to self-determination in their life and property
  
• The belief that social, economic and technological improvement (progress) is possible and good

A moral value – or even an imperative – to work for progress, not just in our own life, but in the lives of others

I will not attempt to argue that these are key “progressive” ideals. I will take that as a given (until I hear from someone who disagrees). I would point out only that the first two are philosophical imperatives of modern democracy. What bears examination, however is the origins of these concepts in Judaism and their blossoming in Christianity, because I think that THIS idea may not have occurred to many progressives.

In fact, many progressive thinkers resist or even harbor hostility to Christianity and Christian institutions. Apparently in ignorance of the fact that these ideals were sown and nurtured only in the unique World View that emerged from the Judeo-Christian religious experience and its resulting philosophic mind-set, a mindset commonly referred to as “Western Civilization.” Recently, there have been a number of popular books following this theme. Examples include: The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins and God is not Great by Christopher Hitchens.

More disconcerting than their apparent ignorance, is the prospect that anti-Christian progressives will continue to drive anything openly religious (at least openly Christian or Jewish) out of the public square and thus out of the culture. Their “success” in this endeavor would have the predictable consequence of burying any hope that those espoused values could survive in the public square and the new “reformed” culture. Essentially, their hostility to Christian values, virtues and culture, is a rejection of Western Civilization itself. And I will argue that the attack on Western culture – if it ever succeeds – could only result in a replacement culture that will have little or no use for the basic “progressive values” mentioned above.

The first phase of this discussion will begin in part two of this series where I will explain how Christian philosophy led Western society to the basic fundamentals of modern liberal thinking on human dignity and rights and on the roles of social institutions to serve people, rather than the other way around. I will also show how these values cannot be sustained in a culture that rejects the basic philosophical assumptions upon which they rest. For, indeed, the hope of social, economic and technological progress is based upon Christian ideals.

Finally, in part three of this series, I will attempt to understand why so-called “progressives” seek to undermine the very foundation of their espoused values. I will explore a couple of possible motives. I think that some (probably most) truly believe in the ideals but are foolishly ignorant of the historic and philosophic origins of those same ideals. They are easily misled by notions that religion (particularly Christianity) is anti-progress and even barbaric. But I believe there are others who hold a “progressive agenda” that has nothing to do with embracing liberal values of human dignity and progress. It is an agenda that requires a deliberate effort to eliminate Christianity for the very fact that it opposes human dignity and progress. I will discuss what this agenda is and why they must hide the origin of the progressive ideals to create a “progressive” smoke-screen to lend moral legitimacy to what is really a frightening – and quite un-progressive – future society.

(Coming installments)
Part 2:
How did Judaism and Christianity lead to the philosophic framework that enables Western democracy and social and economic freedom?

Part 3:
Why do “Progressives” seek to undermine the values of Western culture (thus undermining Christianity, democracy and human rights?)

Morality Salad

Yompin’ Yimminy! It’s been a long time since my last post, I know.

I’ve been thinking about a lot of little topics, nothing huge or terribly pressing, but always buzzing there in the background of my consciousness. Summertime has also imposed certain burdens on my time which have hampered my ability or opportunity to write anything new. Summer also tends to be a busy time at work (where many, even most, of my ideas usually have time to germinate and sprout), so I’ve had to spend more energy focusing on the mundane tasks of the job rather than doing the more mentally satisfying work of theology, philosophy and social analysis.

The things I’ve been mulling over constitute a varied jumble, a salad if you will, of topics concerning morality as it relates to business culture, economics and other social and political concerns. The “global economy”, war, the legal vs. moral status of the family in society, contemporary American culture and the “religion” of secular materialism are among the topics in the mix. (I suspect that there is more than just greens and vegetables in there, so maybe it’s more like a “taco salad” with a little spicy beef mixed in as well.)

(By the way, if any of you have any suggestions for a topic for this blog, any topic, feel free to leave a comment and tell me about it. If I find your idea interesting, I’ll give it some thought and write something …)

In any event, I hope to develop something soon that is worth posting, so check back every so often. Also, I’m still waiting for word from my “guest contributor” who it seems has even less time for writing than I do.

In the meantime, feel free to peruse my older posts and browse through the archives (linked on the gray sidebar) for the ones that have dropped off this main page. Don’t be shy—leave new comments there too, if you wish, but if you do, be sure to leave a “flag” message in the most recent post’s comment box directing my attention to the right place.

The saddest thing I ever heard

Like everyone else, I hear a lot of sad things all the time. Things such as news about a toddler who was accidentally run over and killed by her aunt who had come to visit (it truly was an accident), psychotic killers on the rampage, or victims of natural or man-made disasters. Every day, it seems, we hear about a lot of seemingly senseless death and suffering, disease, situations created by the consequences of a long series of bad choices, a bad philosophy about life or someone just being “in the wrong place at the wrong time”.

But of all the tragedies I hear reported, or hear from the mouths of friends and acquaintances, by far the SADDEST thing I ever hear is, “I used to be Catholic”.

“WHAT!??” you may ask, “Are you saying that someone’s choice of RELIGION is more important than someone dying of cancer, whole cities being wiped out by tsunamis and hurricanes, the bombs of war and terrorism, and innocent children being killed??”

Yes, I am saying that.

I have said many times that religion (the way we understand and approach God and how we treat other people) is the most important thing in the world. Everyone has to die sometime, and it can be either quick or slow, self-induced or at the hand of someone else (either by intent or accident), by disease or by some other unexpected and unavoidable process or event (the details aren’t that important). And of course, “he who dies with the most toys” is still dead and leaves all his toys behind.

Suffering is an unavoidable part of life. The difference between happiness and misery isn’t whether or not you suffer (or what the particular things are that cause you to suffer), rather it is how you suffer (i.e. how you choose to deal with the suffering that comes your way, and where you find the strength to help you endure it). Sometimes people truly suffer needlessly, such as when they suffer loneliness or alienation because they are so self-absorbed that they refuse to love anyone else, but usually suffering has a way of finding us all by itself.

So everyone suffers and everyone dies. (I’m not trying to be callous, just putting things into perspective, showing you the “Big Picture”.) When a person dies, he faces a personal Judgment before God that determines where he spends eternity. (Next to eternity, our time and suffering on earth are nothing.) The main focus of this Judgment is whether or not you loved and served God in this life (or at least did the best you could with the natural reason God gave you (cf. Rom 2:13-16)). Those who truly loved God in life (not just pretending to) will be eternally happy (beyond imagination). Those who truly loved themselves more than God will be eternally miserable (beyond imagination). There is no third choice.

Part of serving God is how you treat the people around you during your life on earth. Part of how you love God is shaped by what you know about Him. This is the stuff of religion. It is what sets the balance that determines where every individual soul will spend eternity. I’d say that’s pretty darn important!

I’ve done my level best to explain why the Catholic religion, taught and practiced by the Catholic Church, is true and tells us the truth about God and man and how we are to relate to both. No one has ever given me any reason to believe that it is not true or that some other religion (or no religion) is better or truer than Catholicism. And it is objectively true, which means that it is true for everyone without exception. (If you think I am wrong on this point, please set me straight, either by leaving a comment (below) or by e-mail (see sidebar).)

The Catholic Church teaches us that the Church itself is “necessary for salvation. Christ, present to us in His Body, which is the Church, is the one Mediator and the unique way of salvation. In explicit terms He Himself affirmed the necessity of faith and baptism (cf. Mk 16:16; Jn 3:5) and thereby affirmed also the necessity of the Church, for through baptism, as through a door, men enter the Church. Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved” (Vatican II: Dogmatic Constitution on the Church (Lumen Gentium), 14; emphasis mine).

Therefore the only way any ex-Catholic can be saved at all is by his bona fide ignorance of the fact that Christ made the Catholic Church necessary for salvation. And since I’m telling you now, that “escape clause” is now closed to any former Catholic who is reading this. (Or at the very least, it is incumbent upon him to “do his homework” and confirm the truth of the matter and stop kidding himself that “everything is OK” regarding the state of his soul before God. He can no longer say at his particular Judgment, “Gee, Lord, I didn’t know. Nobody ever told me.”)

That is why the phrase “I used to be a Catholic” is the saddest thing I ever hear. No one ever leaves the Church (stops attending Mass on Sundays and practicing the faith) except through ignorance (not adequately understanding the truths of the faith) or malice (loving one’s sin more than God—and the sin might simply be the deadly sin of pride). If a person truly understood what the Church teaches, and truly loved God, he could never leave the Church He established, His Bride, His Mystical Body.

A case in point

I have a good friend whom I have known since childhood (I’ll call him “Dave”) who was born and raised in the Catholic faith. While he was away at college, he met and fell in love with a girl (I’ll call her “Patty”) who was also born and raised a Catholic. Many years before, Patty had had a number of “bad experiences” concerning the Church, for example the bad example of a particular priest (alcoholism, I think) and her parents’ divorce. Apparently she used these events collectively as an excuse for leaving the Church “never to return!” (she is very strong-willed). I believe she was attending some Protestant church when Dave met her.

Dave started attending church with Patty in their college town and everything seemed OK (I don’t know at what point he stopped going to Mass). It seems Dave was poorly catechized in school (a common situation in the ’60s and ’70s) and he either didn’t know or didn’t care about the essential differences between Catholicism and Protestantism or what was expected of him as a Catholic.

Well a few years later, in any event (to make a long story short), they got married in a Protestant church, had a number of kids and are now living their lives like good Evangelical Protestants. It’s not that Dave has any problem with Catholicism, but rather that Patty does and, if he values his marriage, he’d better not set foot in a Catholic church ever again(!). And so, caught on the horns this dilemma, Dave seems to have convinced himself that “it’s no big deal, as long as you are [some kind of] Christian”. (These are not actual quotes. I am putting words in their mouths based on what I know of their attitudes and personalities.)

Here’s where it gets dicey. Unless they had both formally defected from the Catholic Church before the time of their marriage (which basically involves each of them writing a letter to the bishop informing him of their intention to leave the Catholic Church), or had applied for and received a document from the bishop dispensing them from the normal requirement of observing the Catholic form of marriage (i.e. in a Catholic church before a Catholic priest)—and I have no reason to believe they did either one—they were bound under a moral obligation to observe the Catholic form for marriage. Since (I assume) they didn’t (thus failing to meet that requirement for Catholics to be validly married), in the eyes of the Church, they aren’t actually married (whether they realize it or not). Since the Church was given the authority by God (Jesus) to regulate this sort of thing among her members, they aren’t married in God’s eyes either. So in God’s eyes, they are “living in sin” (fornication—sexual relations between unmarried persons). [This has nothing to do with the “legitimacy” of their children. Legitimacy is a matter of civil law, and as far as the State is concerned they were legally married.] In Canon (Church) Law, this would be a “slam dunk” annulment (meaning it is obvious without further investigation (if I have the facts straight) that no marriage ever existed in this case).

If Dave and Patty have not formally defected from the Church, they are NOT PROTESTANTS (regardless of how they describe themselves); they are in fact lapsed Catholics who happen to attend Protestant services and no doubt hold a number of Protestant doctrines. This may seem to be a mere technicality to non-Catholics, but it makes all the difference in the world in Canon Law.

To rectify their situation, Dave and Patty could each go to sacramental confession (for all the years they were away from the Church) and return to the practice of the Faith of their youth, and finally have their (civil) marriage convalidated (or “blessed”) by a Catholic priest (not a likely scenario under the circumstances). Or (if Patty refuses to be reconciled to the Church) Dave could still go to confession on his own and receive absolution for his own years away from the Church (and his illicit sexual relations with Patty), and then continue to live chastely (sleeping in separate rooms like brother and sister) with Patty (also unlikely). I suppose a third possibility would be for them both to formally defect from the Church now and then get “re-married” in their Protestant church or before a JP (then at least in the eyes of God and the Church they would in fact be married for the first time).

But that still leaves the question of the state their souls when they die. Fornication is a mortal sin (if done with full knowledge and consent of the will). So is leaving the Church. One unrepented mortal sin lands you in hell. A sin is mortal if three conditions are met: (1) it is “grave matter” (the act itself is serious enough), (2) one understands at the time that it is grave matter, and (3) one gives full consent of the will (in other words, “I know it’s a serious sin, but I freely choose to do it anyway”). If there was a way they could have found this out but still went ahead, they are still (at least partially) guilty of the sin. If they didn’t know at the time but were informed about it later, but refused to do anything to correct the situation, they are as culpable as if they knew all along.

Presumably both Dave and Patty want to go to heaven, but the way things are now I don’t see how they can get there. Ignorance is a wonderful thing, I suppose, but it has its limits. You see why I feel the situation is so sad. I constantly look for an opportunity to clue Dave in to the precarious spiritual position they are in, but circumstances make such an opportunity exceedingly remote and I’m certain he “don’t want to hear it”, and talking to Patty about it is out of the question. It looks hopeless.

Good thing it isn’t up to me. God gives every person every opportunity to repent before death and be saved. If someone chooses to defy God and His law, that is his own choice. I can still pray for them, certainly. But it is still a very, very sad situation.

Prayer, worship and the communion of saints

This topic is a major stumbling block for many (perhaps most) non-Catholics. The problem arises because for most non-Catholics (with the exception of Eastern Orthodox and other schismatic churches and groups which retain valid priestly orders), the highest form of worship is prayer.

At a typical Evangelical Protestant worship service, for example, there are periods of singing, communal prayer (led by the pastor or some other minister), perhaps a time for some silent personal prayer, and the sermon (into which is usually incorporated some scriptural passages). During the service, the prayers are directed to the Heavenly Father, to Jesus, and perhaps on a rare occasion to the Holy Spirit—but always to God. Most Protestants would never dream of praying to anyone but God, because prayer is worship.

And a Catholic would agree—prayer directed to God is a form of worship. But for the Catholic, prayer is not the highest form of worship. The highest form of worship, as ordained by God Himself, is sacrifice. This was true of the Old Covenant with the Jews (which is why God (through Moses) went to such lengths to train the Jews in how to do it), and it is true of the New Covenant with the Church (in the holy sacrifice of the Mass, or the Eucharist). The Eucharistic sacrifice, we believe, is the same one, pure, eternal Sacrifice of Jesus Christ, offered “once, for all” (Rom 6:10; Heb 10:10; 1 Pet 3:18), and re-presented for us by the priest in an un-bloody manner, thus fulfilling the command of Christ, “Do this in remembrance of Me” (Lk 22:19; 1 Cor 11:24-25). (If there are any questions or comments on this, I can go deeper into the theology of the Eucharist, but this is enough for the moment.)

Protestants, on the other hand, have no sacrifice, since the Reformation did away (for the most part) with the ministerial priesthood. (The main function of a priest is to offer sacrifice.) So when it comes to worship, all they have is prayer.

But sometimes Catholics “pray to” Mary or another saint (or angel), and it is understandable that someone who doesn’t have the Catholic understanding of prayer might confuse this act with the act of worship. And of course worship (latria) of anyone or anything other than God constitutes the grave sin of idolatry.

We communicate with other human beings on earth by means of speech or some kind of writing or signals. We communicate with spirits by means of prayer (which can be either verbal [audible] or mental). God is spirit, but so too are the angels and the saints in heaven.

When we “pray” to a saint or one of the good angels, we are simply asking him (or her) either to pray to God on our behalf (i.e. to intercede for us), or to pray along with us to God. The New Testament enjoins us (or gives us an example) to pray for one another, and to ask others to pray for us (1 Thes 5:25; 2 Thes 3:1; Heb 13:18; James 5:16; etc.) Nowhere does the Bible say that those who have died in Christ (i.e., who are commonly called saints) are prevented from praying for us, or that we shouldn’t ask for their prayers. In fact, Revelation 5:8 and 8:3-4 depict the prayers of the saints being offered like incense by angels and the holy ones in heaven before the throne of God. These are the prayers of those on earth offered to God through the mediation of the angels and saints already in heaven. This mediation in no way detracts from the One Mediatorship of Christ (1 Tim 2:5), but rather participates in it, for we are members of His Body, the Church (1 Cor 12:25, 27). Each member of the body (whether on earth or in heaven) works together with the other members for the benefit of the whole body. The Church is also the family of God, and like the members of any family, we all communicate freely with one another and help each other any way we can.

I can’t imagine any Christian who, if asked, would simply refuse to pray for another Christian (or anyone else, for that matter). We here on earth are still hindered by the effects of our sinfulness. Those in heaven, however, are not. There is no sin in heaven and no sinful thing can enter it (cf. Rev 21:27). Those who have died in the grace of God are freed (or are in the process of being freed) from all sin and all its effects and see God face to face in unadulterated love. This love extends also to all He created, including the souls still struggling on earth with sin and its effects. We know, too, that the prayers of the just (or righteous) are very powerful (James 5:16). Those in heaven are more righteous than anyone still on earth. The pure prayers of the saints before the throne of God are of tremendous help to us here below. Why would they, now perfected in charity, not ardently desire to continue praying for us? Why should we not avail ourselves of their powerful intercession and assistance?

Catholic Devotion to Mary

A few weeks ago (Feb. 16th) I received from Ebenezer Scrooge (who sometimes posts comments here) a suggestion for a new post. Here’s what he wrote:

Mary, the wife of Joseph and the mother of Jesus, should be the most esteemed of all women in the hearts and minds of all who follow God’s Son.

Figuratively speaking, as Eve is the Mother of all who physically live and then die, so Mary, because of her trust in and obedience to God, is the Mother of all who trust and obey God after hearing the Good News, receiving eternal life, now and forever.

The adoration should go no further than this. She was the same as the rest of humanity: a human being, conceived and born in sin, thus having a sinful nature. She desperately needed God’s redemption and received it in the manner as the rest of Adam’s offspring can and do.

Eb explained further that he wrote that as a “discussion starter” and was really just asking about the basis of Catholic Marian devotion in general, how the whole doctrine developed, especially what are its sources in Scripture and the writings of the early Church Fathers and the like.

He makes some very good points. It must be understood, however, that the Church never taught that our love and devotion to Mary should ever involve “adoration,” but this is a common misconception among many Protestants and non-Christians alike, so let’s deal with that first.

The Church makes a distinction between three levels or kinds of honor in Catholic piety. The first and highest is called latria and is that worship or adoration that is due to God alone. The lowest of the three forms is called dulia and can refer to the honor and reverence of a disciple for his master, a child for his parents or a subject for his sovereign lord. In Catholic devotion it specifically refers to the veneration we show to the angels and other saints as friends of God. Between these two Catholic theology places hyperdulia, an elevated form of dulia reserved for the Blessed Virgin Mary on account of her unique place in God’s plan of salvation for all mankind. It is closely associated with but subordinate to that of her divine Son.

It is possible to find references in some old Catholic sources to the “worship of Mary,” but remember that languages change over time, that such citations are generally old, and that worship in such cases should therefore be understood in a broader, more archaic sense of that English word (i.e., a high degree of honor, respect, reverence, esteem or homage) rather than our narrower modern sense (adoration reserved exclusively for God in His divine majesty). It might help to think of how the British call certain magistrates “Your Worship” but we Americans would address such officials as “Your Honor.” Words more commonly used today in reference to the proper attitude toward Mary are veneration and devotion. We venerate sacred persons and things, as Protestants do the saints in heaven, the Holy Bible and representations of the cross, and we show devotion to those people we hold especially dear (such as one’s parents, spouse or children). (Sometimes, too, we have to consider the possibility that the intended usage might have been more poetic than literal. Did Frank Sinatra truly "worship and adore" the women in some of his love songs? Not any more than Tony Bennett actually wanted to visit that celestial body when he sang "fly me to the moon.")

Similarly, one sometimes comes across the phrase “the cult of Mary [or some other saint],” but this too is simply an adoption of the Latin word cultus, meaning a system of ceremonial or religious honor or devotion. This is entirely different than the way the word is commonly used today in reference to a tightly controlled religious sect holding exotic or unorthodox beliefs (frequently bound closely around a single charismatic leader or small leadership group).

The document Lumen Gentium (The Dogmatic Constitution on the Church) was produced at the Second Vatican Council and was promulgated by Pope Paul VI on November 21, 1964. The final chapter of that document (Chapter VIII—paragraphs 52 through 69) is titled “The Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of God in the Mystery of Christ and the Church.” (The Council debated whether it ought to make a separate document on Mary, but in the end decided it more appropriate to incorporate this examination of the Church’s teaching on Mary in the context of the Church’s overall understanding of its own nature, mission and purpose, so integral is her role in the entire life of the Church.)

Everything the Church believes and teaches about the Blessed Virgin must be understood as deriving from her relationship to her divine Son, Jesus Christ, and her unique role in the history of salvation. As this fact becomes more and more clearly seen, it begins to dawn on the believer that, while she was indeed redeemed by the one sacrifice of Jesus on the cross, she was NOT “just like everyone else.” Permit me to quote par. 53 from the Introduction to that chapter in its entirety to put it all into perspective.

The Virgin Mary, who at the message of the angel received the Word of God in her heart and in her body and gave Life to the world, is acknowledged and honored as being truly the Mother of God and Mother of the Redeemer. Redeemed by reason of the merits of her Son and united to Him by a close and indissoluble tie, she is endowed with the high office and dignity of being the Mother of the Son of God, by which account she is also the beloved daughter of the Father and the temple of the Holy Spirit. Because of this gift of sublime grace she far surpasses all creatures, both in heaven and on earth. At the same time, however, because she belongs to the offspring of Adam she is one with all those who are to be saved. She is “the mother of the members of Christ … having cooperated by charity that faithful might be born in the Church, who are members of that Head” (St. Augustine). Wherefore she is hailed as a pre-eminent and singular member of the Church, and as its type and excellent exemplar in faith and charity. The Catholic Church, taught by the Holy Spirit, honors her with filial affection and piety as a most beloved mother.

“… Mary, a daughter of Adam, consenting to the divine Word, became the mother of Jesus, the one and only Mediator. Embracing God’s salvific will with a full heart and impeded by no sin, she devoted herself totally as a handmaid of the Lord to the person and work of her Son, under Him and with Him, by the grace of almighty God, serving the mystery of redemption. Rightly therefore the holy Fathers [of the early Church] see her as used by God not merely in a passive way, but as freely cooperating in the work of human salvation through faith and obedience. For as St. Irenaeus says, she ‘being obedient, became the cause of salvation for herself and for the whole human race.’…” (from par. 56)

“… [Mary] faithfully persevered in her union with her Son unto the cross, where she stood, in keeping with the divine plan (cf. Jn 19:25), grieving exceedingly with her only begotten Son, uniting herself with a maternal heart with His sacrifice, and lovingly consenting to the immolation of this Victim which she herself had brought forth …” (from par. 58).

Mary was indeed correct when she spoke of “God my Savior” (Lk 1:47). In the classic explanation, if there is a pit in the middle of a pathway, one can be saved from it in one of two ways: one can be pulled out after having fallen into it, or one can be prevented from falling into it in the first place. Both are possible ways of being saved from the pit. Mankind was stuck in the pit of sin. But man was not originally created in sin. Adam and Eve were created sinless, but fell into sin. Mary was likewise created sinless, saved by a singular (miraculous) act of God, in virtue of her intended divine motherhood, so that she would be a fitting (immaculate) tabernacle for His Son at the appointed time in human history. When the time came for her to give her consent to being the human mother of God’s Son, thus giving Him His human nature, she needed the moral capacity to do so in complete and perfect freedom. This includes freedom from sin, which would otherwise limit or taint the free exercise of her will in making such a momentous decision that would affect not only herself but all mankind.

The angel Gabriel bore witness to this sinless state when he addressed her as “full of grace” (Lk 1:28). If the box is full of salt, as Archbishop Sheen used to say, there is no room for pepper. We are given to understand that the Greek word used here by Luke implies an absolute fullness (“to the brim” and overflowing with God’s grace), not just a relative fullness (participating more in grace than sin, or even possessing more grace than anyone else).

Some will object, “How could Mary have been saved by Jesus’ sacrifice before it happened?” Well, Abraham and Moses were also saved by the one same sacrifice of Jesus. They also lived before it happened. The conceptual difficulty arises because our perception is conditioned by our experience of time. We are stuck in time (hampered in that we have no other experience). God is not. Christ’s sacrifice on Calvary was an eternal act, and therefore not limited by time, and is made accessible to all men (in one way or another by God’s design) through His grace. God dispenses His grace to each man, woman and child in history, in His infinite mercy and wisdom, as He deems best. Who are we to quibble about His chosen methods?

Next: Prayer, worship and the communion of saints

Hey, what’s happenin’, man …

I have been working on a number of things, actually, although it may appear to visitors here that I have fallen asleep at the wheel.
Sometime-commenter Ebenezer Scrooge sent me a message suggesting a discussion related to Marian devotion, and I have also started to study the “social encyclicals” beginning with Rerum Novarum.
There may also be a “guest contributor” posting here sometime in the not-too-distant future.

Hey, look--it's the green flash!!

(Those of you who have served in the Army will already know that the shield-shaped patch on the beret is called a "flash.")