Basically “righteous” is a good word, but it sometimes has the feel of being pretentious or ostentatious. But it really doesn’t mean anything like that. It’s usually defined as:
– Characterized by uprightness or morality. – Morally right or justifiable. – Acting in an upright, moral way; virtuous. – (Slang) absolutely genuine or wonderful.
It comes from the Middle English rightwos, rightwis, from the Old English rihtwis (cf. right & wise).
The adjective “Right” can mean:
– In accordance with what is good, proper, or just. – In conformity with fact, reason, truth, or some standard of principle; correct. – Correct in judgement, opinion, or action. – Fitting or appropriate; suitable. – Most convenient, desirable, or favorable. – Of, relating to, or located on or near the side of a person or thing that is turned toward the east when the subject is facing north (opposed to left). – In a satisfactory state; in good order. – Sound, sane, or normal. – In good health or spirits. – Principal, front, or upper. – Of or relating to political conservatives or their beliefs. – Socially approved, desirable, or influential. – Formed by or with reference to a perpendicular. – Straight. – (Geometry) having an axis perpendicular to the base. – Genuine; authentic.
The noun “wise”, as used here, is defined as:
– Way of proceeding or considering; manner; fashion (usually used in combination or in certain phrases): otherwise, in any wise, in no wise.
Okay, now that we more or less know what we’re talking about and know what the words may, can, or do mean, I’d like to recommend being righteous. We’re desperately in need of more righteous men and women in every sense of the word, including political conservatives! What’s a conservative really? As the name implies, it’s someone who want to conserve—presumably to conserve something of value in the judgement of that person, many persons of like mind, most persons, or everybody. If we’re true conservatives, of course we want to conserve what is good—and develop and build on it as well. Naturally if it’s not good, we probably want to correct, improve, and better it, if possible—and if not, even start all over and replace it with something better. You know, words are like weapons. We must always be careful how we handle and use them; it can be very dangerous and even harmful if we fire them off irresponsibly. I think it’s a good thing to try to be an upright and moral person, virtuous, genuine, just, correct, truthful, sound, sane, of good spirit, principled, conservative, authentic, and all the rest. In the best sense of the word, it’s good to be righteous. Righteous people are in short supply. Please help!
If you’re thinking about resolutions, here are some thoughts about thinking:
THINK (Look before you leap!) Do I think before I react: – when I read an email or newspaper or magazine or book? – when I listen to somebody else in person or through the internet or on the radio or TV? – when I watch a movie or video or play? – when I chat, gossip, criticize, praise, or advocate? – when I go to a rally or sporting event or assembly or religious service?
THINK CRITICALLY (Does it make sense?) – Is what I see or hear fact or fiction? – Does it make sense based on what I have experienced or know or believe or have been taught? – Does it stand up to testing? What would happened if it were put into practice?
THINK FREELY (What am I afraid of?) – Do I just echo or relay other people’s ideas or words? – Do I trust my own judgements? – Do I know enough about what I’m talking about? – Do I have the courage to face the consequences of what I say or do? – Am I afraid of disagreement or negative reaction or criticism or dismissal?
THINK REALISTICALLY (“Beautiful dreamer, wake unto me”) – Do I confuse the impossible ideal with the real? – Do I remember that living in the flawed human situation includes me, too? – Do I remember that it’s “better to light one candle than to curse the darkness”? – Does practice make perfect or just make us better or neither?
THINK OUTSIDE THE BOX – Do I realize that there never has been, is, or will be a person exactly, 100 percent, like me? – Do I realize that I may have to face or deal with a situation that in some ways is different from everybody else’s knowledge or experience? – Do I realize that no one, short of God, knows all the right answers? – Do I realize that just because something never happened before doesn’t mean it cannot happen now? – When I come up with a new idea or recommendation or proposal for a solution to a problem, do I carefully explore its consequences and test it out before I decide if it’s right or good? – Can I live without other people’s recognition or approval or esteem or applause? – Can I live with other people’s criticism or misunderstanding or rejection or condemnation or ostracization?
THINK HUMBLY – Do I realize or sometimes forget that I am a creation? – Do I remember to seek to discern the designs and will of my creator? – Do I have a fixed set of values? If so, what is their source? – How do my thoughts, word, and deeds stand up in relation to my fundamental values? – Do I remember that even those who explain, teach, or preach about the designs and will of God have their limitations and imperfections? – Is “God help me!” part of my mind set?
“Is there to be no development of religion in the Church of Christ? Certainly, there is to be development and on the largest scale.” Do those words sound a little provocative to you? Well, they should—and they are! But, surprisingly, they’re from the writings of a 5th century Gallic monk-saint, Vincent of Lérins. (The Lérins, the site of his abbey, are islands near Cannes in the French Riviera.) He cautioned, however that “Development means that each thing expands to be itself, while alteration means that a thing is changed from one thing into another. “The understanding, knowledge and wisdom of one and all, of individuals as well as of the whole Church, ought then to make great and vigorous progress with the passing of the ages and the centuries, but only along its own line of development, that is, with the same doctrine, the same meaning and the same impact.” Vincent went on to compare this kind of development with that of the body: “Though bodies develop and unfold their component parts with the passing of the years, they always remain what they were.” This is a man of the 5th century speaking, and speaking with great optimism in a time of growing chaos: the time of the collapsing of Roman imperial authority in the West, of the “barbarian” invasions, of theological controversies such as Pelagianism. Regarding the latter, Vincent tried to strike a balance between extreme views regarding free will versus the grace of God: that justification is something we achieve ourselves versus that we, of ourselves, can not achieve it at all. The concept of development—in the sense of growth, change, maturation, and evolution, to use our modern vocabulary—offered a kind of middle way. It’s interesting. Those ancient controversies still echo in our day, but with different concepts—e.g., nature vs. nurture.
After describing the growth and development of the human person and calling attention to the difference between maturation and alteration, Vincent wrote: “…the doctrine of the Christian religion should properly follow these laws of development, that is, by becoming firmer over the years, more ample in the course of time, more exalted as it advances in age. “…there should be no inconsistency between first and last, but we should reap true doctrine from the growth of true teaching, so that when, in the course of time, those first sowings yield an increase it may flourish and be tended in our day also.” Do individuals change and develop? Of course! Do families change and develop? Of course? Do cultures change and develop? Of course! Do countries change and develop? Of course! Do religions change and develop? Of course! But, can individuals, families, cultures, countries, and religions become other than what they started out to be? Can they change course, lose their way, mutate, and decline? Alas, of course! Vincent warned, “If, however, the human form were to turn into some shape that did not belong to its own nature, or even if something were added to the sum of its members or subtracted from it, the whole body would necessarily perish or become grotesque or at least be enfeebled.” Cancer is a kind of grotesque growth—an exaggeration of a normal growth or the development of a foreign growth. If I have it, it’s no help if the doctor tells me I should go back to the healthy state I used to have. That’s history. I want to know what I should change now!
Tired of interminable changes and dismayed by so many contemporary attempts to return to or relive the past? It’s challenging to embrace and live fully in the here and now. A successful integration into the present is a never-ending process, since the present is a changing and evolving reality, not a fixed one. Beware of being thwarted by handicaps in growth and development, inadequate philosophical and theological underpinnings, socio-cultural pressures, or fear. The concepts, understandings, and strategies that at one stage in our development served us well, in another may prove to be obstacles to further growth and maturation if they are not modified and readapted to the present reality in which we live. This can lead to misperceiving of opportunities as threats, a point of view that needs the optimism of Pope Pius XI, who urged, “Let us thank God that He makes us live among the present problems.” Conversely, the total rejection of past experience in favor of entirely new, speculative, future possibilities, a kind of radical mutation of our lives, may also be damaging to our integral development. Here we need Pope Leo XIII’s challenge and encouragement, originally to Christian philosophers, neither to reject what is new nor jettison what is old but “augment and perfect the old through the new.” To successfully achieve this integration and renovation requires wisdom and a subtle discernment of substance from accident, essential from ephemeral. Saint Paul said it well: “When I was a child, I used to talk as a child, think as a child, reason as a child; when I became a man, I put aside childish things.” But, also, in the words of Shakespeare: “parting is such sweet sorrow…”
What to do? – Trust in God. The one who made us, sustains us in being, and guides our lives, has intervened in them far more than we suspect—and will continue to do so. – Be not alone. Relatives, friends, colleagues, fellow citizens, neighbors, and acquaintances may have disappointed us in the past and may do so again—none of us is perfect. Yet, we need to share our experiences of success and failure in life to assist one another to cope with the challenges of today and tomorrow. – Be real. Resist the temptation to “flee the world” and its disturbing and bewildering changes. Withdrawal is not the remedy—we’re not frightened snails! Don’t seek retreat to an imagined better past or to an unrealistic imagined future. – Be politic. Otto van Bismarck once said, “Politics is the art of the possible, the attainable—the art of the next best.” An old Chinese proverb expressed a similar wisdom: “It is better to light a candle than to curse the darkness.” They both imply an implicit warning about extremism, that “The perfect is the enemy of the good.” – Be patient. The word, “patient”, is rooted in the Latin verb, patior, which means to suffer, to bear, to undergo. We’re all limited and imperfect. We all have our blind spots and prejudices. But, all we’ve got—besides God—is each other. – Be glad. Don’t let the torrent of bad and fake news demoralize and depress you. Avoid being immersed and entangled in a web of devices and distractions. See the beauty of the created world and all of its creatures, in spite of their limitations. Give thanks!
The meaning of words and the use of words are constantly shifting, changing, and evolving, for better or for worse. Remember the 1939 epic movie, “Gone with the Wind”? There was a controversy whether the censors would approve it for general release and showing in movie theatres. Why? Well, in a climactic scene toward the end, Rhett Butler (played by Clark Gabel) leaves his desperate and distraught wife, Scarlett O’Hara (played by Vivien Leigh), who pleads with him to stay, claiming what will she do without him. His famous reply was, “Frankly, my dear, I don’t give a damn!” The use of that last word was prohibited by the 1930 Motion Picture Production Code! Today the whole issue seems curious. First, because “damn” now is regarded as a fairly common, mild expletive. Second, because censorship of speech or scenes seem archaic—the current practice, in effect, is almost “anything goes.” One result is that for a modern audience, that final, farewell scene doesn’t have the force, shock, and dramatic impact that it had in 1939. That means that the final impact of the film is substantially different for 2020 viewers. A similar observation can be made about a lot of our familiar religious language. We use many words that belong to earlier, much earlier, generations and whose original meaning, force, and impact are substantially different—sometimes to the point of being misunderstood or almost unintelligible—for people of our day. It’s tough to make a lot of our traditional religious language understandable not only because the meaning of the words has shifted but also because the underlying mentality, customs, and values of the people who use these words has changed also.
For example, St. Thomas Aquinas (1225- 1274), after the rediscovery of the works of Aristotle (384-322 BC)—preserved by Iberian Muslim scholars who had translated his works into Arabic—used some of Aristotle’s ideas and concepts to illuminate Christian beliefs. Thomas’s philosophy and theology in pre-Vatican II days was at the core of seminary formation, and its vocabulary was still in use (Latin words translated from the Arabic, translated from the Greek). Take two important concepts derived from Aristotelian philosophy: “substance” and “accident”. For For Aristotle, “substance” referred to the essence of something, usually what we mean by the word we use to name it—e.g., a car may be of any size, shape, color, make, décor, value, or the like, but it still is a “car”. For Aristotle, “accident” referred to the non-essential or secondary aspects or properties of something—e.g., human beings may be tall, short, dark, light, male, or female, but all are equally human beings. St. Thomas is famous for his explanation of “transubstantiation,” using these concepts to try to help us understand the mystery of the presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Martin Luther (1483-1546) called “transubstantiation” a monstrous word for a monstrous idea. To say the least, for him “transubstantiation” was way out-of-date. We face similar challenges. By now, Luther’s explanations and language are also somewhat out-of-date and bewildering, along with Thomas’s and Aristotle’s. We’re still believers, but it’s hard to find the right words, understandable words, to explain our beliefs!
I remember reading an article some time ago about oil and the future of the petroleum industry that reminded me of a conversation with a friend many years previous: “You know the Fischer company, the ‘bodies by Fischer’ of the Cadillacs?.” he said, “Well, they used to be a carriage company. When ‘horseless carriages’ started to become popular, the Fischer company decided that their business wasn’t just carriages but transportation. “They responded to change and development by ‘thinking outside the box’, and they not only survived but grew.” Many small and big oil companies have been doing the same. They’ve been accurately reading the signs of the times and rethinking their business model, their “mission”, if you will. The article explained that they were not only embracing new technologies like fracking but also totally different businesses like wind turbines. To use my friend’s example, they also were thinking outside the box, realizing that their business is not just “oil” but “energy”. What about religious people and religious organizations? How many of them have been successfully reading the signs of the times and thinking outside the box? It’s not easy to do, of course, since it involves letting go of secure, familiar, and once effective and fruitful things and risking embracing a relatively unknown, uncertain, and somewhat risky future. There has been a lot of progress—and a lot of defeatism, too. For example, take “ecumenism”. During the last half century, most Catholics have moved away from “outside the Church there’s no salvation”. In fact, one of the seismic shifts in the understanding of the church has been that the one church of Christ embraces all who are trying to live as disciples of Jesus.
Some of the aftershocks of this ecclesiologic earthquake have involved placing less emphasis on rites, rules, and regulations: – For example, defining church membership less by the ritual of baptism and more by the life-time commitment to follow Jesus that the ritual presumes and celebrates. – For example, esteeming faithfulness to that commitment less by regular Sunday Mass attendance, Friday abstinence, or observance of other church regulations and customs and more by fidelity to the teachings, all the teachings, of Jesus. – For example, judging the validity of marriage less by the marriage ceremony having been conducted according to church law and more by the existence of the decision and commitment that the ceremony symbolizes and represents. – For example, respecting persons with ministry in the church less for their having been ordained or authorized and more for their personal integrity, competence, and loving commitment to service. Change isn’t always comfortable, probably frequently isn’t comfortable—don’t we often speak of “growing pains”? It’s painful because change—growth, maturation, development, evolution, whatever you want to call it—is challenging. It doesn’t involve just thinking outside the box, it means getting out, climbing out, breaking out of the box. It means rethinking your identity, purpose, and mission. It It means letting go of some things, even really good things, so that you can have others, even better. A chick can’t live unless it cracks the egg!
“It’s a free country, ain’t it?” That used to be part of a very snotty comeback from someone being told what to do—or what not to do. It’s a very American attitude: brash, bold, assertive, proud—and even disdainful and rebellious. The United States was born out of rebellion and revolution. The thirteen English colonies rejected the authority of their king, disobeyed his laws and edicts, and asserted that they had a God-given right to be free of him. Let’s face it, by the standards of their day their behavior was considered illegal, criminal, wicked, and sinful. And, we celebrate it every 4th of July! The American justification for the revolution and the war for independence involved invoking a higher power and authority than the king and asserting the existence of inalienable natural rights, rights that cannot be taken away by any human authority. An irony of American history is that we’ve become a very litigious, legalistic country—constantly bring charges against one another and seeking punishment and redress. We’re constantly arguing about laws, invoking laws, rules, and regulations, and challenging the legitimacy of their interpretation. American Catholicism also has been very legalistic. For many, the impact of Vatican II was not much more than a change in Church laws, rules, and regulations: turning the altars around, Mass in the vernacular, no more Friday abstinence, and easing up of regulations for Lent. Here’s a current example of a religious legalism: Because of the Coronavirus, we were “dispensed from the obligation of attending Mass every Sunday”. Dispensed? There weren’t any Sunday Masses!
We can’t blame all of the legalism on American culture. There is a certain legalism in the Church itself. For centuries, the Church defined itself as a perfect society. The two perfect societies, Church and State, each had their own legislative, judicial, and executive functions and personnel. They each could make laws. The Church has a Code of Canon Law, courts, judicial trials, and can mete out sentences and punishments. Of course Church authorities have to be of service to all its members, and their challenge is to be of service: to serve more than rule, to teach more than legislate, to witness more than enforce. What a curious irony of history! American Catholics historically have been outstandingly obedient, dutiful, and rule-abiding. When it comes to the Church, the majority of them are certainly not at all “brash, bold, assertive, proud—and even disdainful and rebellious”! In the history of the Church, many others—in many other times and places—have been, for better or for worse! In hindsight, the American revolution came to be seen as a good—not perfect, not without flaws, faults, and limitations—but as a good. Today, the U.K. and U.S, are not enemies but allies and share common roots, culture, and history. In the Church, a similar change of attitude has occurred. The “heretics” and “schismatics” of the past are now brothers and sisters in Christ, part of the one Church of Christ in all of its diversity. Let’s stop waving the “Don’t Step on Me” flag and march under “Ex Pluribus Unum”.
That Pope Benedict XVI change the discipline of the Catholic church regarding the calculation of the date of the celebration of the Resurrection.
There is no common agreement among Christians concerning the date for the celebration of the feast of the Resurrection. Most Orthodox churches calculate the date taking into consideration the date of the Jewish celebration of the Passover; also some follow the Julian rather than the Gregorian calendar. It is impossible for the Orthodox churches to change their calculation, since they have no central authority; on the other hand it is very easy for the Catholic churches to change, since they do. Further, it would have no practical impact on the life of the Catholic faithful, since the feast of the Resurrection is a movable feast occurring at a different time every year. Accordingly, it would help to promote Christian unity and relieve tension and frustration among the Christian faithful if:
1. The general discipline of the Catholic church would be to celebrate the feast of the Resurrection on the first Sunday after the celebration of the Jewish Passover (which means the first Sunday after the first full moon of the spring equinox, providing it does not occur before the Passover). 2. In countries where the majority of the Orthodox churches follow another calculation, the national conference of Catholic bishops would have the faculty to choose to follow that calculation, providing there is unanimity to do so.
That Pope Benedict XVI remove restrictions on the exercise of their jurisdiction by the patriarchs and major archbishops of the sui iuris Catholic churches
According to the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches, the jurisdiction of Eastern patriarchs and major archbishops is limited to their historical homelands. First, this presumes a territorial and geographical model of a sui iuris church, and, further, there is no clear definition of their historical homelands (territorium proprium). If anything, it is no more than a snapshot of their existing exercise of jurisdiction at one or another particular moment of history. It is more helpful to view a sui iuris church (any sui iuris Catholic church, including the Latin) primarily as a personal network; the definition of geographical boundaries is needed to distinguish the exercise of jurisdiction of ordinaries of the same sui iuris church, one from the other; it is not needed nor are is it appropriate to distinguish the exercise of jurisdiction of ordinaries of different sui iuris churches, one from the other.
That the jurisdiction of Congregation for the Eastern Churches be extended to include shared jurisdiction with the Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples over the Arabian Peninsula
For the purpose of the Special Assembly for the Middle East of the Synod of Bishops, the definition of “Middle East” has included the countries of the Arabian Peninsula. Until now the life of Christians and the presence of the Catholic Church in that region has been left to interventions of the Secretariat of State and to the normal jurisdiction of the Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples. However the Arabian Peninsula and its countries are the heartland of the Arab world and, in the case of Saudi Arabia, the heartland of Islam; except for the Arabian Peninsula, the Middle East is a region otherwise under the jurisdiction of the Congregation for the Eastern Churches. Further, the countries of the Arabian Peninsula have an enormous Catholic population, not indigenous, equal in dimension to the Catholic population of the rest of the Middle East and consisting of both Latin and Eastern Catholics. Provision should be made for a sharing of jurisdiction between the Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples and the Congregation for the Eastern Churches to ensure that the Eastern churches and their faithful are not subordinated to the Latin church, nor vice-versa.
That the mission, scope of action, and authority of the dicasteries of the Holy See be better clarified and delineated
There are multiple dimensions to the role of the Holy Father; they include his roles as bishop of Rome, father and head of the Latin (Roman) Catholic Church, and successor of Peter with a ministry and service of unity to the entire Church of Christ. The Holy Father utilizes a variety of dicasteries and structures to assist him in these multiple responsibilities; however, there are often “grey areas” concerning the scope of action and authority among these dicasteries. It would be helpful to distinguish those dicasteries concerned exclusively with the governance and life of the Latin (Roman) Catholic Church from those concerned with governance and life of the non-Latin Catholic churches, from those concerned with the governance and life of all the sui iuris Catholic churches (both Latin and Eastern), and from those concerned with the entire Church of Christ. In particular, so that the work of the Catholic Church and its relations among Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant, and Evangelical churches and ecclesial communities may be better advanced and coordinated, it is recommended that the Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples share competence and jurisdiction with the Congregation for the Eastern Churches not only in the Arabian Peninsula [as above] but also in Ethiopia and India.
That the equal dignity and status of all sui iuris Catholic churches be respected not only in Canon Law but also in administrative structures and practice
Historically, some communities of most Eastern Orthodox churches have sought communion with the church of Rome and the Successor of Peter. Although the joint Orthodox-Catholic Balamand Declaration recognized the historic legitimacy and value of these “uniate” churches, it advocated a different ecclesiological model of unity. However, the Orthodox churches in particular are carefully observing the status and treatment of the Eastern Catholic churches in the Catholic church family, seeing this as a possible paradigm for the future of church unity. Regrettably, the Eastern Catholic churches are frequently little understood and often undervalued by many sectors of the Latin (Roman) Catholic Church. Although very small and substantially more ethnic in comparison to the huge, world-wide Latin Church, they have radically equal status and value. In practice, the Latin Church is frequently favored over the Eastern churches and is often considered as the “default” Catholic church. To put it another way, the Eastern Catholic churches, in many countries, are considered as “exceptions to the rule” of the Latin. In particular, any sui iuris Catholic church should have the right to fully exercise its own discipline and follow its own customs wherever it is established; some of the restrictions placed on its practice in some parts of the world — e.g., the ordination of married men to the priesthood — although understandable because of historical factors as well as prejudice and misunderstanding, are inappropriate. Further, any person anywhere seeking to become a member of the Catholic church has the right to affiliate with and to be received by any sui iuris Catholic church anywhere; the work of evangelization and the Catholic Church’s missionary outreach and its support should not be considered as primarily the activity and prerogative of the Latin Church.
That appropriate permanent consultative ecclesial structures be created to assist the Holy Father in his role as Successor of Peter with the special ministry of unity
Occasionally, the Holy Father meets with and consults the patriarchs and major archbishops of the Catholic Eastern churches; some of them are also named cardinals of the Roman church. If a cardinal is perceived as a member of the Latin (Roman) Catholic Church, this is very awkward; if a cardinal is perceived as a counselor to the Successor of Peter in the exercise of his ministry for the union of the Church of Christ, it is very appropriate. In this latter sense, it would be good if all the heads of sui iuris Eastern Catholic churches were to be named members of the College of Cardinals, all in the first category of cardinal patriarchs, with precedence over the other ranks. Otherwise, no heads of churches should be cardinals and all should have precedence over cardinals; in this case, it would be good to have a special council of patriarchs and major archbishops that would regularly meet with the Pope.
Where I live, “uptown” means northward and “downtown” means southward. Maybe it’s because of the nearby river that flows from north to south — or maybe it has to do with looking at a map, where north is at the top and south at the bottom. In Egypt, “up” definitely relates to a river. Since the Nile flows south to north, upper Egypt is south and lower Egypt, north. In many ancient maps, east was at the top and west was at the bottom. To get one’s bearings was described as getting oriented — i.e., figuring which way was east. Whichever way maps are “oriented” they tend to deceive. They always distort reality one way or another. Generally, maps are two-dimensional — but the world isn’t. Remember the traditional Mercator projection used in mapmaking? The further north or south, the larger everything became; Greenland always seemed enormous. And, if you saw a polar-type projection, what a surprise! Northern Norway is a lot closer to northern Alaska than you might have thought. Airplane travelers are used to watching flight maps, where long routes always seem curved. That’s because the world is spherical and the shortest distance on the surface of a sphere can’t be a straight line. The moment you look at a world globe, it’s perfectly clear and obvious. We take all this for granted, but, it seems this was pretty innovative stuff at the time of Columbus — although the ancient Greeks knew it well. The moral of the story is you’re not in touch with reality if you’re thinking in terms of only two dimensions — the world is three-dimensional. But, is it? Ever since Einstein challenged scholarship and science with his theories of relativity, we speak about the space-time continuum. You need a fourth-dimension, time, to be truly in touch with reality.
Can you really understand a person if you have only a momentary glimpse of his or her life? Does a moment frozen in a snapshot give a true picture of someone else? Video recordings seem more lifelike because they show movement, change and progression. A true picture of another person is impossible without the dimension of time — the pattern of growth and development through infancy, childhood, adolescence and adulthood. Just as individuals grow, change and evolve, so do peoples and nations, institutions and political systems, religions and churches. None of them can be adequately understood without factoring in the dimension of time. Knowledge of history, unfortunately, is often sadly lacking. Mass media give us a daily slice of life, a snapshot, whatever the topic, but no comprehensive perspective. How well can you understand the tensions within Iraq without knowing about the centuries-long hostility between Sunnis and Shiites, or about the sense of superiority of Iranians, heirs of an ancient empire, to Arabs?
Don’t the roots of a divided Palestine go back to Britain’s century-old divided Middle East policy: support for a Jewish homeland along with support for an Arab nation-state? Ecumenical apprehensions are less baffling if you know that Latin crusaders invaded Constantinople and displaced the Orthodox patriarch and that Catholic Teutonic Knights fought to conquer Orthodox Russia. In our rootless, snapshot modern societies, it’s easy to lose one’s bearings — to become “disoriented” — about life and history. Hopefully we’ll face where the light rises and know the difference between going up and going down.
If I were an oyster, I think I’d take a pretty dim view of pearls. After all, what makes a pearl? Usually it’s the result of some foreign and perhaps irritating particle getting lodged inside the protective shell of the living oyster. Since the oyster can’t get away from or get rid of the foreign particle, it does its best to deal with it — the oyster secretes and coats it with the same nacre that lines and smooths the inside of its shell. The result is an encapsulated particle in the form of a glistening sphere — a pearl. Alas, poor oyster, for the pearl is worth more to most people than the creature that brought it into being. The pearl is ripped from the living flesh in which it is nested and the oyster is cast aside to die. It’s an odd inversion of values. Since without oysters there can be no pearls, why should the pearl be worth so much more than the oyster? In some ways, living faith communities are like the oyster. They are confronted with disturbing foreign customs or secular traditions that somehow find their way into the fabric of their daily life. If it’s not possible to get rid of them, living societies do their best to accommodate and incorporate them, suitably modified and rendered harmless. Curiously, some of the things and customs most associated with the identity of a particular church or religious community often are the results of such accommodations. Further, these “pearls” are sometimes inordinately esteemed, valued and defended. For example, appropriate religious clothing. Increasingly, Muslim women are wearing head scarves or veils that had their origin in some ancient Middle Eastern customs. They are becoming a controversial badge of religious identity.
But, how much do scarves and veils ultimately matter? With respect, the faith and devotion of the person is more than important than the clothing. Catholics have experienced similar situations. A couple of generations ago it was unthinkable that a woman would come to church with her head uncovered; now the custom barely exists. The founders of many religious congregations wanted their members to live simply and modestly, so they made their uniform the ordinary clothing of the poor of their day. What would they think of the post-Vatican II controversies about habits or of a religious generation more concerned about dress than mission? Is it vital that Western prelates wear the Roman imperial purple, now the sign of the papal household? Is not the Byzantine Liturgy equally efficacious, if its prelates do not wear imperial-style crowns? Whether the congregation prays barefoot or shod, covered or uncovered, men and women together or apart, prayer is still prayer. Orthodoxy survived a time without its icons. Western Catholicism can manage without Latin high Masses. Protestants have grown beyond “only Scripture.” These are all precious pearls of our various histories and traditions — but the living church is greater than them all. We dispute customs and traditions prompted by different times and places. But, the most important thing is the living, common faith that produced them. The pearl may be of great price, but the oyster is priceless.
(Published as “Priceless Oysters” in one, 33:2, March 2007)
Manage Cookie Consent
To provide the best experiences, we use technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. Consenting to these technologies will allow us to process data such as browsing behavior or unique IDs on this site. Not consenting or withdrawing consent, may adversely affect certain features and functions.
Functional
Always active
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
Preferences
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
Statistics
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes.The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
Marketing
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
