The Theft of Words

The Theft of Words

   One of the issues when working in a living language, as English is, is that the language is ever changing.  Words move in and out of use, out of familiarity.  Words like “propiciation” need to be taught to the congregations so that they have a full understanding, and so they are no longer ignorant.

   There seems to be far more insidious changes, though:  those words whose meanings have been changed deliberately to fulfill a political, social, or religious agenda, say like icon or mystery or marriage; those words that are now claimed and defended by a group that the word is of sole (not soul) proprietorship, say like catholic or Christian.

   We could discuss how John Wayne is an “icon” of the American west or how there are thousands of denominations, sects, and cults that call themselves

Christian.  I just want to talk about the word “catholic.”  It comes from the Greek as Katholicos.  It means universal, and yet more than universal; as in all things believed, by all believers in the unshattered Church of the first five centuries A.D.

   The Roman Catholic Church would have us believe otherwise, at least many of their current crop of writers.  There are many Catholic Churches:  Old Catholic, Spanish Catholic, Polish National Catholic, etc.  There are many Orthodox and Anglicans that

understand that they, too, are catholic (orthodox, too), and profess it in the creeds.  Reading the texts of Hahn or Pearce, or any of the many, would have you believe that the only catholics are Romanish Popeish.

   Professor Scott Hahn has a bright mind and is a good apologist for the faith, as in his book Reasons to Believe.  He is very Rome-centric for an American, probably because he is a convert.  He constantly talks about “we Catholics” and “the Catholic Church” as if Rome existed in a vacuum.

    Joseph Pearce, an English Roman Catholic, fancies himself as one with great literary insight.  Indeed, he did show great promise in his biography of J.R.R. Tolkien.  His current thesis and book about William Shakespeare being Roman Catholic is bunk.  His

critique and attack of C. S. Lewis, C. S. Lewis and the Catholic Church, is complete and utter trash.  The problem with his attack, I believe, is his complete lack of understanding of the beautiful word “catholic.”

   The cafeteria Christianity, pick and choose those things you like enough to nibble on (like the desert of a “loving God”) and don’t scoop the rest (like the veggies of the “cross”), of the last two centuries have created thousands of heretical “churches.”  As

we know, a heresy is choosing or selecting out some of what is wanted, part of the truth, and leaving out that which is found to be not of our taste.  

   Unless we help build capacity to understand the word and concept of “catholic” we may lose the faith.  The Catholic Church (or The Church Catholic) is the universal church of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.  Rome can’t be allowed to monopolize or steal this key to our faith.  If we don’t understand it, use it, and defend it we will lose this key word, and others, in our faith:  CATHOLIC.

In Christ's love,
Fr. Robert Pax

Greatly Disturbing

Greatly Disturbing

            My brother and I recently shared a hotel room for a couple of nights.  I always enjoy my time with him.  He seems to have always been there for me, and as adults we have grown into great friends.

            Because I have to be attached to oxygen all the time, and because I snore and cough most of the night, he thought it would good to purchase some earplugs for the nights.  There was a sporting goods store across the way from the hotel, so I tagged along.

            I had never been in a place like this before.  If wildlife had a HELL this was surely it.  The place was bigger than an airplane hanger.  In my hometown we had a very nice sports shop, Wammy’s, where we could get all we needed.  This mega shop was filled with trophy animals of every kind, stuffed/mounted, and displayed like a museum all around the store. 

            They were trophy animals, the best of the species, and beautiful creatures.  All creatures come from the creator, including us.  These were hunted because they were the biggest or most unusual, or even rare.  There was a herd of pronghorns, a mule dear “museum,’ African trophies, walls of dear, elk, and caribou heads.  For what purpose were they killed, other than to brag?

            One of my majors in college was Biology.  I understand that we have knocked the whole predator/prey ratios out of whack (not a scientific term).  I know that we must hunt to cull herds like a mountain lion or bear or pack of wolves.  I am not a hunter myself, but I have had friends that did it right:  practice, reload, butcher, use most of the animal.  My disgust is not about this.

            Science teaches us that the smartest, strongest, most disease-resistant  animals become the trophy animals.  They make it through season after season.  They become the grand gene pool for the species in that area.  Given the opportunity of time they may develop unusual antlers or colors on their coats.  The weak, slow, dumb, young or old and sick are culled out of the herd by the major predators in the area, not as trophies.

            These mega stores promote, not intentionally I’m sure, the weakening of the species that they prize so well.  This is bad biology, let alone theology.

            As a priest, I know that people hunt and fish.  Some use cameras more than bullets.  Some fisher-folk employ catch and release techniques.   And as I said earlier, some are very responsible hunters.  I wonder if many think about that this is all happening in God’s creation.  God has created this beauty around us that we can live in it and protect it, and use only what we need.  We don’t need trophies.

            I couldn’t stop thinking about and greatly disturbed by such a display of vanity as I saw at that mega hell for big game animals.  I didn’t sleep well for days.  My brother didn’t need earplugs, but I did. 

In Christ's love,
Fr. Robert Pax

Mothers' Day Proclamation

Mothers' Day Proclamation: Julia Ward Howe, Boston, 1870

Mother's Day was originally started after the Civil War, as a protest to the carnage of that war, by women who had lost their
sons. Here is the original Mother's Day Proclamation from 1870, followed by a bit of history (or should I say "herstory"):

          ......................................

Arise, then, women of this day! Arise all women who have hearts,
whether our baptism be that of water or of fears!

Say firmly: "We will not have great questions decided by
irrelevant agencies. Our husbands shall not come to us, reeking
with carnage, for caresses and applause. Our sons shall not be
taken from us to unlearn all that we have been able to teach
them of charity, mercy and patience.

We women of one country will be too tender of those of another
country to allow our sons to be trained to injure theirs. From
the bosom of the devastated earth a voice goes up with our own.
It says "Disarm, Disarm! The sword of murder is not the balance
of justice."

Blood does not wipe our dishonor nor violence indicate possession.
As men have often forsaken the plow and the anvil at the summons
of war, let women now leave all that may be left of home for a
great and earnest day of counsel. Let them meet first, as women,
to bewail and commemorate the dead.

Let them then solemnly take counsel with each other as to the
means whereby the great human family can live in peace, each
bearing after their own time the sacred impress, not of Caesar,
but of God.

In the name of womanhood and of humanity, I earnestly ask that a
general congress of women without limit of nationality may be
appointed and held at some place deemed most convenient and at
the earliest period consistent with its objects, to promote the
alliance of the different nationalities, the amicable settlement
of international questions, the great and general interests of
peace.

Julia Ward Howe
Boston
1870

Fundamentalism vs. Contemplation

This is a review of a book that I have enjoyed very much.  I hope after reading this you will seek it out to read, also.  There is much we need to understand.  RKH+

Let the Earth Keep Silence

Fundamentalism vs. Contemplation?

Contemplative Christians, Jews, and Muslims have more in common with each other than with the fundamentalists who share their respective faiths.

By Carl McColman, April 24, 2012

In his book Peace Be With You: Monastic Wisdom for a Terror-Filled World, Orthodox Christian author David Carlson explores how contemplative spirituality might offer a way of responding to the ever-present danger of terrorism and war in today's world.

Haunted by the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, Carlson devoted a sabbatical to visiting a variety of both Orthodox and Catholic monasteries throughout North America, interviewing nuns, monks, and other spiritual seekers about how to discern a truly Christian response to political violence.

Toward the end of the book, he offers a fascinating insight based on a conversation with a monk called Brother Stravros: "the antidote to the absolute certainty fostered by fundamentalism is contemplation. . . . A respect for mystery, not absolute certainty, is the mark of the person who 'thinks with the heart.'" Carlson goes on to declare that "contemplation is a foreign and suspect spiritual activity in fundamentalist circles. And that means that contemplative Christianity, Judaism and Islam and fundamentalist Christianity, Judaism and Islam lead to two very different attitudes toward violence and vengeance."

Carlson here is using the word fundamentalist not in its historical sense of a Christian who embraces pre-modern evangelical beliefs, but in its more general, broad sense, referring to any kind of aggressively intolerant religiosity—as Wikipedia puts it, "the demand for a strict adherence to specific theological doctrines . . . combined with a vigorous attack on outside threats to their religious culture." With this definition in mind, it's easy to envision this dichotomy: fundamentalism is the quest for (or belief in the attainment of) "absolute certainty" as a religious or theological stance, while contemplation is grounded in a "respect for mystery" which implies faith, rather than certainty, as its defining character.

Clearly, not all terrorists are religious fundamentalists; nor are all fundamentalists violent. But violence with ties to religious belief—from the Israel-Palestine conflict, to the troubles of Northern Ireland, to abortion clinic bombings, to 9/11—all seem to arise from a religiosity anchored in a sense of certainty: "We are right, you are wrong; we are conformed to the will of God, and you are not. Therefore we have a moral obligation to deal with you."

By contrast, contemplation—the "respect for Mystery"—tends to prefer silence to debate, humility to certainty, and a preference for asking questions over dispensing answers. Because of this, contemplatives ask questions and counsel restraint that fundamentalists—even within the same faith -- may well find troubling.

It's certainly no secret that Christian fundamentalists disavow contemplation. Websites like Lighthouse Trails Research and Apprising Ministries have built their entire mission around attacking Christian contemplation from a theologically conservative (read: fundamentalist) perspective. Carlson comments on "al-Qaeda's fierce hatred of the mystical tradition of Sufism in Islam," and I have heard Jewish Kabbalists speak about how their tradition is viewed with suspicion by other segments of the Jewish community.

It seems that contemplative Christians, Jews, and Muslims have more in common with each other than with the fundamentalists who share their respective faiths! But where the contemplatives seem eager to embrace interfaith dialogue and understanding, the fundamentalists often harbor overt or veiled hostility toward those whose faith is different from their own.

Fundamentalism may indeed be the enemy of contemplation, but ironically, it is a one-way conflict. This reminds me of the charming poem "Outwitted," by the American poet Edwin Markham:

He drew a circle that shut me out -
Heretic, rebel, a thing to flout.
But Love and I had the wit to win:
We drew a circle that took him in.

I am not suggesting that contemplatives have no criticism of fundamentalism. Certainly no one likes to be attacked, even verbally. But to contemplatives, fundamentalists are not adversaries but rather persons at a different stage in their spiritual life.

From James Fowler to Clare W. Graves to Ken Wilber, numerous psychologists, theologians and philosophers have theorized on how spirituality appears to evolve over the course of a normal human life span. Such theories often suggest that the need for certainty can unfold into a more nuanced faith that embraces paradox, mystery, and unknowing—often accompanied by a deepening commitment to compassion and tolerance.

Fundamentalism, therefore, represents a kind of spiritual "arrested development" that seems to plague individuals or even entire communities. For contemplatives, this means that fundamentalism is not a threat that must be defeated, but rather an existential malady that needs a cure. This is not to say that boundaries are unimportant—clearly limits are necessary, particularly where violence is concerned. But the wisdom of Jesus's "turn the other cheek" applies here. Only by meeting the fear and hostility of fundamentalism with the understanding compassion of contemplation, can we ever hope for healing—whether on a personal or planetary level.

Carl McColman is a Lay Cistercian, a blogger (www.anamchara.com) and the author of The Big Book of Christian Mysticism.

From Patheos: Progressive Christian