What brings us joy this Advent

Thanksgiving is a time of festivity and food and visiting with family and friends, arrived at with hours of preparation, and followed by dirty dishes and much cleaning up. Some travel many miles to eat the traditional meal, and by the end of the day most of us are exhausted (though well fed) and ready for an afternoon nap and a long night’s sleep - looking forward to (or maybe not looking forward to) leftover turkey for lunches and dinners in the days ahead. As evening approaches and the guests take their leave, we rest from the days events.

But some do not rest...

The Friday after Thanksgiving – Black Friday – with its deep-discounted, bargain sales and slick marketing campaigns, has become the shopper’s holiday. People awake in the wee hours of the morning, or do not sleep at all, to stand in line or camp out in parking lots, waiting for the doors to open at their favorite retailers and shopping malls. It is a vigil of sorts, as they gather in shuffling crowds before the sun rises, bundled up against the cold, anticipating the joy of sharing in this “sacred” rite.

Some friends I know awoke at three or four o’clock in the morning to join the teaming masses. A coworker’s wife drove more than thirty miles from their rural home into the city where she hoped to find the best deals – she had already visited three stores before her husband had gotten out of bed. I even heard about a couple who exchanged wedding vows in front of an electronics store and received a new flat-screen TV as a wedding gift from the retail chain that hosted their nuptials.

Now, call me old-fashioned, but a cold dimly-lit parking lot, surrounded by strangers clutching their purses and shopping lists, hardly seems like holy ground on which to wed. Do we now enter into the bonds of holy matrimony in the shadow of the dollar sign, where once the Cross stood? Have we erected a new god? What is the cultural significance of this “Black Friday” phenomenon?

The name itself strikes me as rather odd - Black Friday. Friday, the day that Christ gave up His life on the cross. How fitting that this day be called “black,” since Christians have traditionally marked Friday with solemnity - especially Catholics who have in the past given up meat on this day of the week, and still do throughout the season of Lent. Of course it is called “Black Friday” for quite another reason. It is the day that businesses hope to be “in the black” with large profits, drawing in customers with unbeatable deals and clever marketing. It is the day that starts the “official” Christmas shopping season.

Does this commercialized “Black Friday” compete with our Christian faith?

Don’t get me wrong. I am not opposed to the free market, and I love finding a good bargain. But a friend of mine made a remark this past Friday that put it all in perspective. He said, “You know, my wife went to these sales today, and it only took her half an hour to get ready. She was up before the sun and out the door in no time flat. Funny thing is for any other event she takes more than an hour to get ready, dragging her feet the whole time and showing nowhere near the enthusiasm. I’ve never seen her get up this early. When we leave for church on Sunday morning she always waits until the last minute and we barely make it there on time.”

His mention of “church” I found particularly relevant. This Sunday was the start of Advent, the time of preparation before Christmas, when Christians reflect on the coming of the Christ. During these weeks leading up to the celebration of Jesus’ birth, we set our priorities for the beginning of the liturgical year. As with Lent leading up to Easter, during Advent we pray and quietly prepare our souls for the coming of the Savior. It is a long vigil encompassing four Sundays…

But for this vigil we do not stand huddled in a parking lot counting our money and listening for the sound of doors being unlocked as crowds of eager shoppers press in around us. Christians during Advent retreat into the quiet of their own hearts and listen for the sound of angels singing, announcing Joy to the World. This vigil is a time to devote ourselves to the Almighty God, not the almighty dollar.

Certainly during Advent we shop and buy gifts as we prepare for the coming holiday. There is nothing sacrilegious or sinful about purchasing such tokens of love for family and friends as we plan for Christmas. But if we arise before dawn with glee and excitement, rushing to the mall for hours of money-spending madness, can we not bring the same enthusiasm to each Mass, or to the vigil of Christ’s birth? Do we instead drag our feet and complain that we need more sleep, and that we wish Mass was scheduled not quite so early? Do we give to Jesus the same joy that we give to our material goods (bought at discount prices, of course)? Are we denying Christ what is rightfully His – our love and devotion?

When Christ died on Good Friday He had told Peter just hours earlier, “Before the cock crows you will deny me three times.” At sunrise each morning the “cock crows.” When that time comes, have we already been to three stores before others are even out of bed? How many hours of silent devotion and prayer could we spend in that same time? Do we deny Christ our joy and enthusiasm on Sunday mornings when we give it so freely to bargain sales and cheap discounts? This Advent we should not care so much about the gifts we purchased at the lowest sale prices, guaranteed, but focus instead on the Gift that was freely given – the birth of God’s Son.

Book Reviews

I have recently been given the opportunity to write reviews of books for an online Catholic retailer. The books are available for purchase at catholiccompany.com (along with many other fine Catholic products). Here is a link to the site…


For the record, I am under no obligation to write favorable reviews. The Catholic Company values the integrity of their reviewers, and requests honest evaluations of their merchandise (including any criticism). I, for my part, will oblige by offering my true opinion whenever submitting a review. To aide me in this endeavor my own penchant for reading Catholic theological, historical, and apologetic works over the past several years will give me some basis on which to judge the merits of any text I might analyze for The Catholic Company.

The book I am currently reading (and nearly finished) for my first review is “Sharing Christ’s Priesthood: A Biblical Study for Catholics,” by Mike Aquilina. I have previously read two other books by the same author, which has given me a good base-line from which to evaluate this current volume of his. Also, over the past few months (and quite coincidentally) I have read two other theological and more technical works on the priesthood and diaconate, which should prove useful in placing Aquilina’s Biblical study in broader context for comparison. Every book I review will receive the same treatment and be subject to a solid critique, applying authentic Catholic doctrine to the best of my ability.

When I have finished writing and submitting a review to catholiccompany.com’s website, I will also post it here at this blog, along with a link to the site, so that anyone who wishes may purchase the featured book or any other product offered by the fine folks at The Catholic Company. Please visit their site as often as you like, and enjoy the excellent faith-based and family-friendly merchandise sold there.

Latin Revival

I am a life-long Catholic. But I was born after the Second Vatican Council. The parish I attended was a small country church built in 1968 in a simple modern style, (not as ugly and uninviting as some) but the Masses held there were just as understated as the architecture. That is to say, they were bare-bones and contained only that which was necessary to make them "valid" but lacking any adornment or style. But occasionally a "style" (of sorts) was supplied by visitors to our parish, who brought with them some recent liturgical "invention" which we had to endure with groans and embarrassment, often averting our eyes from the carnage.

Our resident nun at the time (who, I am certain, looked forward to the day of Catholic priestesses and charismatic Masses filled with liturgical dance and new-age symbolism) led the way in this liturgical demolition derby, crashing her way into every component of the Mass and leaving the congregation wondering what was left that was sacred and untouchable. The people patiently endured these periodic displays of irreverence, but it was obvious that the simple farming community in which I lived was not going to respond to or embrace something so grotesque, masquerading as legitimate Catholic liturgy. As time went on the experimentation slowly stopped and something of a "normal" Mass settled in (which admittedly still lacked a distinctive "style," but at least the intrusions of "style" we had endured were worthy of elimination). Bland was better than heretical.

Needless to say, I was born into a time in Church history marked by liturgical abuses that confused the laity and robbed the faithful of many traditional Catholic devotions and prayers and spiritual beauty. The Mass itself was so badly misused that few of us in the pews knew for certain what the Divine Liturgy was even supposed to look like anymore. For decades that has been the state of affairs in many parishes across the country and around the world.

Recently though, there has been the beginnings of a revival within Catholicism, especially among the youth who (like me) never experienced the Mass in Latin or knew the Church before the confusion that followed Vatican II, that promises to bring a more traditional form back to the liturgy. There is a movement to re-establish traditional prayers and devotions like Eucharistic adoration and the Rosary, and to breathe new life into the Mass by restoring some of the old.

Now I am not suggesting that Vatican II was a mistake. As a valid Ecumenical Council approved by the pope and convened under the proper conditions for such a Council, Vatican II was guided by the Spirit and teaches with authority. But the implementation of the Council was often sloppy and unregulated. While the Council Fathers certainly taught correct doctrine, the changes that came about within the Church afterward did not always follow the letter of the law. My childhood experience of bizarre experimentations and invented rites bears witness to the fact that Vatican II was not implemented in a uniform way that preserved the integrity of what had come before. And my experience was not unique. Others endured the same sort of liturgical inventions, and far worse.

Now, as I am older, I realize that all of the liturgical "styles" that had been forced on us in my youth were all lacking in one thing – SUBSTANCE. Substance is the meat of the matter and should drive our determination of the value of liturgical style. To have substance means that a thing has "practical value" or "purpose" (as a dictionary will tell you). The liturgical "styles" that were in vogue in my childhood were literally invented out of thin air or borrowed from some new age spiritual movement that happened to be popular at the time. They were not natural outgrowths of Christian spirituality or handed down from saints and martyrs who could attest to their religious worth. Rather, these liturgical inventions were pieced together by self-appointed liturgical gurus who wanted nothing more than to shape the liturgy to their own desires. The "spirit" of Vatican II gave them the perfect cover for their radical experimentation. They cared nothing for the "substance" of true Catholic Tradition, they only sought to concoct the most unique, the most avante-garde of ceremonies.

But what escaped these liturgical abusers is that real substance, real worth in religious liturgy is found not in the cutting edge newness of experimental forms, but in the depth of spiritual Truth contained in the rites and prayers that have an historical connection to the movement of the Spirit that came before. Christianity is handed-on, not reinvented. Our liturgy (while it may change) must always have a connection to its past in order to remain valid and True. Discarding the old and replacing it with something radically different can never be a valid expression of true Catholic liturgy. Otherwise it becomes all "style" with no "substance."

My experience of the Mass from childhood was not all bad. The substance of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist remained through it all. And that gives us hope for the future of the liturgy. The new awakening of Tradition in the hearts and minds of the next generation of Catholics means that we have not lost the faith that was handed on to us.

In keeping with that spirit of awakening old traditions, I decided recently to learn some Latin prayers for personal use in my own prayer life. In 2005 Pope Benedict urged the lay faithful to memorize some of the basic Catholic prayers in the Church’s ecclesial language, so that common prayer could be had during international gatherings such as World Youth Day, and to keep us in touch with our historic liturgical roots. Along this same line, the recent Motu Proprio, Summorum Pontificum (issued in July 2007) allowed for the expanded use of the old Roman Rite Latin Mass throughout the world. Also the Church’s outreach to the Society of Saint Pius X (known for its hard-line traditionalist views that caused schism within the Church) shows a new openness and appreciation for Latin in the Church’s prayer life and a ought to encourage all Catholics to explore how Latin can be incorporated into their own experience of the faith.

With that in mind, I have posted below the Latin text for the Sign of the Cross and the Our Father. Together these formed the starting point in my exploration of Latin in my spiritual life. I hope other Catholics are encouraged to do likewise as the Church enters a new age of spiritual renewal...

SIGNUM CRUCIS (The Sign of the Cross)

In nomine Patris, et Filii,

In noh-mi-neh Pah-tris, et Fee-li-ee

et Spiritus Sanncti. Amen.
et Spee-ri-toos Sanc-tee Ah-men

PATER NOSTER (Our Father)

Pater noster, qui es in caelis,
Pah-tair noh-stair kwee es in chay-lees;sanctificetur Nomen tuum.

song-tee-fee-chay-tour No-men too-um:

Adveniat regnum tuum
ahd-vay-nee-aht ren-yoom too-um

Fiat voluntas tua, sicut in caelo et in terra.
Fee-aht voh-loon-tahs too-ah seek-oot in chay-lo et in ter-rah

Panem nostrum quotidianum

Pah-nem noh-stroom kwo-ti-dee-ahn-oom

da nobis hodie,dah noh-bees oh-dee-ayet dimitte nobis debita nostra

et dee-mee-tay noh-bees day-bee-tah noh-strah,
sicut et nos dimittimus

sic-oot et nohs di-meet-tee-moos

debitoribus nostris.

de-bee-toh-ree-boos noh-strees
Et ne nos inducas in tentationem,et neh nohs in-doo-cahs in ten-tah-tsee-oh-nem
sed libera nos a malo
sed lee-bay-rah nohs ah mah-loh

Amen

The humble embrace of traditional marriage

The recent election has again brought to the fore the issue of same-sex “marriage.” In Maine voters struck down the state’s gay marriage law which had been recently enacted by their elected representatives. In a referendum vote, 53% of Mainers decided to repeal the law and leave traditional marriage intact…for now. Obviously this is good news in a state as left-leaning as Maine tends to be. But of course the fight is not over. As the push for “gay rights” continues on many fronts, we must remain vigilant knowing that the culture is saturated with the homosexual agenda and a disdain for traditional values and institutions.

After the election I discussed the Maine vote with a few liberals who live in that state. They expressed dismay that the people of Maine voted down what they saw as a step toward equal rights and freedom for all. Among the many arguments these liberals presented in favor of gay marriage two ideas stuck out in my mind as most deserving of closer examination here on this blog. I address those two ideas below…

1) A person’s sexuality is not that big a deal. Why should it matter that a person is homosexual?
 

I cannot adequately express in words my baffled amazement at this comment. If sexuality is not a “big deal” then why are homosexuals so adamant about claiming the status of marriage? After all, marriage is society’s way of holding up human sexuality as a BIG DEAL! If being gay (or being straight) is no big deal, then why should we have an institution such as marriage that recognizes sexual relationships…gay or straight? Why not do away with marriage all together?
 

Any way you look at it, our sexuality IS a big deal! It shapes our interpersonal relationships; it affects our emotional and psychological dispositions; it influences how we act in society and how others treat us. Sexuality (our sexual identity) touches so many facets of our lives that it is probably one of THE BIGGEST DEALS in shaping our outlook on life and our overall personality. Just tell a gay person (who undergoes a sometimes agonizing process of self-identification) that their sexuality is “no big deal.” Tell a person who is experiencing confusion in their sexual identification that it’s “no big deal” and they should just get over it.
I don’t think this is a valid argument to be used by the pro-gay-rights movement. Not only is it flat out wrong, it also hurts their cause by belittling the role of sexuality in our lives and thus undermining the importance they place on the cause itself. In other words they are shooting themselves in the foot.

2) The people who oppose gay marriage think they are better than everyone else. They push their ideas on the rest of society and don’t leave room for other opinions.
Now these are really two separate issues, but the way it was presented to me in conversation the two ideas are linked in the mind of the liberal gay-rights activist.
Let’s look at each claim separately and then see why it is wrong to equate the two...

The first claim is that the advocates of traditional marriage think that they are “better” than everyone else. This implies that we traditionalists are “self righteous” or “holier than thou” (to use some of the exact terms that were thrown at me). This brings up the question of “goodness” in the sense of personal sinfulness. So the liberals I spoke with believe that traditionalists support male-female marriage because we are the sinless God-fearers and we reject same-sex marriage because those on the other side are the evil enemies of God.
 

But the fact is I am a sinner and so are all the other supporters of traditional marriage. We know that we are sinners and that is precisely why we hold up traditional values and traditional institutions because they help us to be better people. We certainly do not live up to the ideals of our Christian faith, but then Christ came to save sinners and anyone who claims Christ as their Savior must first admit that he is a sinner and in need of salvation. I do not see myself as “better” than a gay person…I see us both as sinner who need God’s help in overcoming our sinfulness.
 

The second point used in this example is that traditionalists push their ideas on society without leaving room for other opinions. The fact is that marriage is not MY idea. Marriage is (and has been for millennia) a universally recognized institution that fosters male-female sexual expression directed toward procreation and the building of families. Marriage has always been society’s way of recognizing a particular sexual relationship as important for transmitting values and bringing up the next generation of citizens. In short, marriage is the fundamental building-block of society.
 

How can we say that traditionalists push their idea on the rest of society, when in fact marriage has been received by all of us from society since time immemorial? Traditional marriage was not invented one day by a group of religious fundamentalists in order to oppress gays or force a certain theology on the community at large. Marriage predates Christianity. Marriage between man and woman is older than Biblical texts, older than religion, and extends back into pre-history.
 

Traditionalists are not sinless, perfect, holier-than-thou religious freaks who want to force a rigid definition onto society. To be honest, traditionalists see marriage as something bigger than anything we in our imperfect state can tamper with. We know that we are imperfect sinful creatures, and that marriage has been handed to us from the history of humanity and we have no authority to change it or alter it in any way. It is those who do advocate a redefinition of marriage who must bear the burden of proof. What makes them so self-righteous and arrogant to believe that they have a “better” way of defining marriage?
 

So we can conclude with the following: Human sexuality is indeed an important facet of our being. It is a VERY “big deal.” It is such a big deal that cultures around the world, across the religious spectrum and all throughout human history have recognized the sexual relationship between man and woman as deserving of its own institution which we call marriage. Those who support traditional marriage between a man and a woman do so, not because we are arrogant or self-righteous, and certainly not because we think we are “better” than anyone else. We do so because we humbly accept what has been handed down to us from God or the “wisdom of the ages” or whatever you prefer to call the source of this venerable institution.
 

Those who support re-defining marriage must learn to accept the importance of human sexuality, not as some personal choice, but as a part of our human nature that touches the lives of others and affects the whole community. To try to change marriage into something that fits our personal desires and that flies in the face of every civilization, religion, and culture we have ever known is the very definition of self-righteous arrogance.

Reclaiming Halloween

In the past several decades, many Christian holidays have become increasingly secularized. Sadly, for many American families, Christmas Day is often more about gifts of material goods rather than reflections on the spiritual Gift of God-made-man lying in a manger 2000 years ago. Easter has been overrun by bunnies and baskets of jelly beans; Saint Patrick’s Day is for the leprechauns; and poor St. Valentine peddles women’s lingerie.

To some degree, even Christians get caught up in the hypnotic glow of lights and lawn ornaments, or green beer, or lavish parades and all the other trappings of the secular calendar. Christians are caught between two worlds. Especially as parents, we realize that when Christian holidays become secularized it leaves us straddling the proverbial fence. On the one hand there is the real need to recognize (and FIGHT for) the true religious nature of the holidays; on the other hand, we do not live in a vacuum. We and our children are exposed daily to the culture that surrounds us. We cannot completely shut it out of our lives. My home is not a monastery and my children are not cloistered religious. We must live in this world, even though we are called to an otherworldly purpose.

Many Christians have realized this dilemma and have begun “taking back” these religious holidays. If we must live in the culture, we will do our best to shape the culture in a Christian mold.

And so we come to Halloween…

As the word Hallow-e’en denotes, this holiday is the “eve of all hallows” – which is the evening before the Feast of All Saints. The word hallowed means “blessed” or “holy;” as in “hallowed be thy name,” which we say in the Lord’s Prayer. On Halloween the “holy” ones are the saints. (The word “saint” comes from the Latin “sanctus” which also mean “holy.”) On November 1 we celebrate the lives of all the Saints who have come before us in the faith. So the evening of October 31 marks the vigil of All Saints Day (All Hallows Eve), just as December 24 marks the vigil of Christmas (Christmas Eve).

But the holiness of this night has been neglected, ignored for so long that some Christians complain (and rightly so) that Halloween seems more pagan that Christian…and even downright Satanic. Some Christians do still send their children out trick-or-treating but others reject Halloween as a work of the devil. They point to the ancient pagan practices that resemble Halloween and draw the obvious parallels. They sometimes acknowledge the “Catholic connection” to All Saints Day, but they use that as yet another weapon in their arsenal to attack the Catholic Church as being demon-inspired and un-Christian. The Church promotes devil-worship, so they say.

The truth is that the Catholic Church does not teach that children should dress up as ghosts and goblins on the evening before All Saints Day and go door-to-door begging for candy. For that matter, the Church also does not teach that we should tell our kids about a man named Santa Claus who puts presents under a tree at Christmastime. These are both examples of secular and, to some extent, pagan cultural practices that have found their way into our own observance of the holidays. Examples of this extend into almost every facet of our lives. For instance, the throwing of rice at weddings stems from the pagan belief that this promotes fertility.

So what is a faithful Christian (Catholic) to do? Should we reject Halloween as a tool of the devil - a part of our pagan past that should be abandoned?

The problem is, if we were to eliminate all of our cultural traditions that are rooted in paganism, or that have some origin in pre-Christian thought, we would strip our culture of many time-honored institutions and perhaps find ourselves without a culture at all. Since New Testament times, Christianity has not destroyed pagan culture, but rather kept what was good in paganism by adding clarity and shedding more light on these beliefs, (giving them a Christian spin), while eliminating only the erroneous and evil beliefs and practices that accompany pagan insights. In a sense we “baptize” pagan philosophy and practices.

This is a Biblically sound principle. Paul did not uniformly denounce pagan ideals when preaching to the Gentiles. Upon entering Athens he said to the people gathered there: "Men of Athens, I observe that you are very religious in all respects. For while I was passing through and examining the objects of your worship, I also found an altar with this inscription, 'TO AN UNKNOWN GOD ' Therefore what you worship in ignorance, this I proclaim to you…” (Acts 17:22-23) In this way Paul intertwined the pagan belief in an unknown, unseen god with the God of Christianity and Judaism. While paganism is not the true path to God, Paul recognized that the seed of truth can be found even among false religions.

The lesson in all of this is clear: It is not necessary to destroy or annihilate all the beliefs and practices found in non-Christian cultural traditions. We must give new meaning to their ideas, highlight the strengths, and eliminate the weaknesses and fallacies.

Halloween is in need of a re-cleansing. It has been neglected and almost abandoned, and a modern neo-paganism has shaped it into something un-Christian. If we are to “take back” Halloween (as we are trying to “take back” Christmas or Easter) we Catholics must bring to the culture our appreciation for the Communion of Saints and the honor that we show to the dead – which is what Halloween is supposed to be about. Unfortunately Halloween has fallen victim to the macabre, grotesque, and even Satanic influence of the pop culture. But as members of a counter-movement within that culture we can push back; we can reclaim our holy night.

This year my family has begun to do this in several ways. We carved a cross (rather than a traditional face) into the large pumpkin sitting on our front porch. As we emptied the contents of the pumpkin we explained to our children that God must also cleanse us on the inside to make us into Christians. As we carved the cross, we explained that we are all marked with the sign of the cross, and the light of Christ glows within. Leading up to the holiday, we have been studying different saints, and we will focus especially on each of our patron saints, our namesakes, on the Feast of All Saints. It’s important to include November 1 in the Halloween celebration since that is the true Feast Day on the Church calendar; and also All Souls Day (celebrating all of our deceased) on November 2. Other ideas include dressing as a favorite saint or Biblical figure rather than a commercial character or a phantom, spirit, witch or ghoul. (Although this year our kids prefer superheroes and princesses.)

It is not necessary to abandon Halloween traditions like carving pumpkins and trick-or-treating. Nor should we throw up our hands and let the secular culture take this holiday away from us so that they can transform it into a grotesque mutation of the “hallowed” celebration it ought to be. Rather, we should focus our time and energy on reclaiming the Eve of All Saints and use it to shape the culture in which we live. We can then say, as Paul might: “I see you have set aside a night on which you commemorate the dead. Therefore, what you celebrate in ignorance, this I proclaim to you…”

You don't have to embrace the extreme...but at least learn to live with it.

Extremism occurs on both ends of the political spectrum. On the Left the most radical faction pushes a secular agenda, embracing multiculturalism and moral relativism. The extreme Right possesses a religious fervor (usually Christian) which shapes a world view that is typically resistant to change, quick to judge, and frequently invokes God and faith in the public forum. Not every conservative or liberal is a radical (most are not), yet the extreme positions on both sides often largely define our political debates. The loudest voices with the most passion and the most press coverage generally dominate the news cycle. This is true on both sides of the aisle.
Like it or not, no matter which political party you join or what political philosophy you adopt, you will always carry with you the extra baggage of the extreme element of your group. When I tell people I am conservative, I know that that word conjures up images of “vast right-wing conspiracies” and Bible-thumping Christian fanatics determined to establish an American theocracy. I have learned to accept this caricature of the Right (regardless of its inaccuracies) as my unwelcome companion in political discussions. But I have also learned to value what the extreme Right offers in support of my beliefs, even if I do not partake in their radicalism. Both the far Right and the far Left operate with a clarity of purpose sometimes difficult to discern among moderates. There is no compromise on their core tenets, and they thrive on simplicity of belief. It is through this simplified view of the world that they offer political insight for the rest of us.
The far Right simplifies the world by seeing everything in “black and white” - good and evil. They categorize and label every aspect of society based on a strict moral code of absolutes. A thing is either “good” and godly and righteous, or it is “evil” and demonic. There is no middle ground. Conversely, on the far left there is nothing but middle ground. Everything is “grey.” The Left is, at its core, morally relative and as such recognizes no single, legitimate moral code. Accordingly, there can be no definitive good and evil, no right and wrong. The far Left’s simplified reality rests on a rejection of absolute moral Truth. Truth is relative.
Of course the flaw in these two approaches is not that they are both entirely wrong, but that they each have it only half right. More moderate thinkers from the left and right know that there is both “black and white” as well as “grey.” There is such a thing as absolute good and evil; and then there are times when moral questions are not so easily answered. Real dialogue happens when each side is willing to recognize the validity of both these points of view. Constructive dialogue always happens in the middle, not from the extremes.
Then what purpose do the extremes serve?
I have learned to accept the far Right as my ally because they offer moral grounding, a jumping off point, an ideological foundation. I begin any serious review of an issue by going back to the center of conservative values, back to the simplicity at the heart of it all. There I know that absolute Truth does exist; that there is good and evil, right and wrong; that there is a God and a purpose to life. I know that the grey-ness of the world is a mixture of the black and white Truths that shape my conservative convictions. Knowing these Truths I can step into the grey middle and better defend a particular position or course of action.
As a Catholic parent I see the importance of the Right’s over-simplified world view reflected in the upbringing of my children. My eldest is six years old. He is just beginning to see the grey-ness in the world of morality. He is beginning to understand that some issues are a complex blend of good and evil which must be carefully sorted out before passing judgment on a course of action or deciding the rectitude of any given moral choice. But to get to this point of complex discernment, he first had to be taught that moral absolutes exist as a foundation to shape his moral compass. He had to be grounded in a more radical “right and wrong” - a simplified moral logic, easily digested by a toddler or a preschooler - from which he can now judge the world. He had to be taught the absolute Truths of morality first, so that now he can navigate the uncertain grey-ness of the physical world.
My three-year-old is not at the same level of moral awareness as my six-year-old. For a few more years she must grapple with the “black-and-white” of a simplified morality so that, when she is ready, she too will reach a level of moral maturity and be able to cope with the grey-ness of the world, having first received a grounding in Truth. In a sense, I am parenting my children from radical Right-wingers into moderate conservatives.
Moderate conservatives do not deny that the world is filled with grey-ness. We meet people every day who are a moral mix of black and white – they are kind and loving souls, and yet they can do evil things. We all are capable of sin; even saints are sinners. No one is morally “white” (that is clean, pure and undefiled); and no one is morally “black” (totally corrupted and un-redeemable). As moral agents our actions are often a mixture of good and evil, in our intentions and in their outcome. If I am to send my children out into this world of grey how will they be able to discern good and evil, how are they to know right from wrong? I must first teach them that “black” and “white” exist and that the grey-ness they see is merely a blending of the two. Only then will they make moral sense of the grey-ness because they will know the source from which it is all derived.
On the other hand, if a child begins from a far-left perspective, that there is no right and wrong, that good and evil are relative, that all is grey and Truth is of our own making, then that child is left with only the shades of grey and no hope of sorting out the black-ness and white-ness of morality. They approach life with their own shade of grey, a unique shade, with no concept of the black and white from which it came. Good and Evil are swallowed up in a confused mix. Such a grounding in moral confusion cannot form a basis for right moral judgment.
So the problem of the political extremes is like that of a child learning moral Truth. The extreme Right sees the “black and white” and so has built a foundation for correct moral judgment (however immature this may be). The extreme Left is like an undisciplined child who has never been shown goodness nor scolded for evil. If the debate between these extremes sometimes seems like a shouting match between two three-year-olds, then I think that is an apt description. The radicals of each party are the embarrassing tantrum-throwers in the political families. If we engage ourselves in an active political life, we are bound to be thrown in at some point with one or the other of these groups (fairly or not). We will find ourselves in the same family with one or the other of the political preschoolers. We will look to our right or to our left and see that our allies in a particular cause are one or the other of the political extremes.
I categorize myself as a conservative. I am not “radical” – but I do appreciate the source from which the radical Right derives its passion. I do not mind being grouped with the Right-wingers any more than I mind being the parent of an unruly three-year-old. It is occasionally embarrassing, and I sometimes scold them publically, but they are part of the family, and I see the possibility of molding them into well-developed moral agents. They at least have in place some rudimentary insights into Truth and our divine origins…although I have serious disagreements with some of them theologically and on the correct application of these principles within society.
The far Right-wing does not always understand the reality of the moral grey (or even accept that it exists), but they do protect with zeal the Truth that I share in common with them. I am not a radical right-winger. But I am a conservative who remains in the fold, not in spite of the extreme faction on the right, but precisely because of those extremists. Although they are often self-destructive, closed-minded, and tactless, they understand certain Truths that the morally bankrupt extreme Left does not and cannot because of its own ideological flaws.
If I must be associated with the radical faction of a particular philosophy, then let it be those who see the world as having meaning and purpose and a foundation of Truth. If my political choices carry with them, at least in part, the added weight of the extreme conservative fringe then I can live with that, because I know that the extreme Left offers nothing in its place.

NOTE:
I would like to stress that there are some extreme elements within politics which do not deserve a place at the table. On both sides there are factions that use reprehensible tactics, or vile language, or make unfair accusations and peddle falsehoods. These groups are not the subject of this post.
I would never embrace or even tolerate a group that would blow up an abortion clinic, for instance. Nor would I suggest that liberals ought to embrace or make excuses for groups that set fire to corporate buildings because of their dislike of capitalism.
Instead I would use as an example a pro-life protestor holding a sign showing the dismembered body of an aborted fetus and shouting at women that they are going to hell for getting an abortion. This kind of action, while extreme (and I do reject it) is far less morally reprehensible than any terrorist action or destruction of property. I would never advocate breaking the law or harming someone physically just to make a political point.
Holding a picture of a dismembered fetus is well within a person’s free speech rights as is shouting that someone is going to hell… But it is tactless and infantile. My point would be that at least such a person has the correct moral foundation – abortion is evil; it is a sin; and certainly hell is a very real possibility for someone who traffics in this sin. But only God can make such a determination about one’s soul. And there are better ways to win over converts to your way of thinking than waving around pictures of bloody corpses.
This kind of political extremism is common and often makes the news. Nobody is doing anything illegal or engaging in terrorist plots…they just have misdirected passions and don’t know how to channel them effectively. As I said above: the extremists like this on the Right are at least in the right ball park. Those on the Left are not even close.

Patristics: Polycarp of Smyrna, Part IV

In our last installment concerning The Martyrdom of Polycarp we uncovered the ancient Christian custom of preserving the bodies or bones of saints as “relics” – objects intended for veneration by future generations. The ancient Christians honored Christ by paying honor and respect to the mortal remains of deceased saints. They revered saints because in doing so they gave glory to Christ from whom the saints receive grace and holiness. By studying and imitating their lives Christians sought to share in the holiness of saints, looking to them as examples of faithfulness and as imitators of Christ.
In the case of martyrs (those who died violently as witnesses to the faith) their imitation of Jesus comes through more directly as they shared in His suffering through their own deaths. In the martyrdom account of Polycarp this parallel between a martyr’s death and Christ’s death on the cross takes on a Eucharistic tone:

“…And as the flame blazed forth in great fury…the fire, shaping itself into the form of an arch, like the sail of a ship when filled with the wind, encompassed as by a circle the body of the martyr. And he appeared within not like flesh which is burnt, but as bread that is baked…”
This description of “flesh” appearing like “bread” is undeniably Eucharistic. In the Eucharist (the communion meal of bread and wine shared by Christians) the Lord’s body is made present under the appearance of bread. We discussed this Real Presence of Christ when studying the writings of Ignatius of Antioch, also a student of John the Apostle and a friend and fellow bishop of Polycarp. Ignatius tells us that the Eucharist is a source of unity within the Catholic Church – we are united to one another by participating in the one sacrifice of Christ made present in the Eucharist, and we unite ourselves to Christ by offering our own suffering as a participation in His suffering made present in the Eucharist. Like Polycarp, Ignatius also compared his own death to the Eucharist in this way: “I am the wheat of God, and let me be ground by the teeth of the wild beasts, that I may be found the pure bread of Christ.”
It is fitting then to honor saints as imitators of Christ, especially those who die a martyr’s death, who link their own suffering to that of the Lord.
Carrying this analogy further, the Martyrdom even suggests that the suffering of these holy and faithful people offers some relief of punishment for sins:
“…And, looking to the grace of Christ, they despised all the torments of this world, redeeming themselves from eternal punishment by [the suffering of] a single hour. For this reason the fire of their savage executioners appeared cool to them.”
This is called “redemptive suffering” – which is the Catholic teaching that our suffering here on earth can go toward the relief of any punishment for the sins of the one suffering, or even for the sins of others. Paul suggests this idea with regard to his own afflictions: “I now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up in my flesh what is lacking in the afflictions of Christ, for the sake of His body, which is the church.” (Colossians 1:24)
Paul says that his suffering fills up “what is lacking in the afflictions of Christ, for the sake of His body.” Not that Jesus’ suffering was ineffective, but that His suffering has a dimension that transcends time and draws us into a relationship with Him, across the centuries, by linking our suffering to His own. We as believers are His Mystical Body. How fitting it is that His Body, the church, should share in the sufferings that He underwent in His own human body while He lived among us. How else can we explain what Paul says about Jesus’ afflictions “lacking” in any sense of that word? If we are to “fill up” what is lacking in His suffering, it can only mean that our own suffering has a redemptive quality through and in Christ’s sufferings.
So when we read in the Martyrdom that Polycarp and his companions were “redeeming themselves from eternal punishment,” we must read this in light of Paul’s own testimony in Scripture. Our suffering has spiritual benefits, not in spite of Christ’s suffering, but through and in His suffering. My suffering can “fill up in my flesh what is lacking in the afflictions of Christ.”
A further comparison between Polycarp’s death and the sacrificial death of Jesus is to be seen in the references made to Polycarp as a “ram,” as an unblemished offering to God in the mode of Jewish sacrificial offerings of old:
“…placing his hands behind him, and being bound like a distinguished ram [taken] out of a great flock for sacrifice, and prepared to be an acceptable burnt-offering unto God…”
So too Polycarp offers a prayer on his own behalf: “… may I be accepted this day before You as a fat and acceptable sacrifice, according as You, the ever-truthful God, hast foreordained, hast revealed beforehand to me, and now hast fulfilled.”
The sacrifice of one’s life in the name of Jesus is the surest way to fulfill what the Lord said when He insisted that we must lose our lives to gain eternal life, and we must take up our cross and follow Him. (Mark 8:34-35) Certainly we are not all called to be martyrs in this way, but those who have met this fate in the course of Christian history, stand out as exemplary models of Christian faithfulness and rightly deserve our respect and honor. Their bones, now shattered fragments of a life once lived in harmony with God’s will, are to us, (as the Martyrdom of Polycarp states): “more precious than the most exquisite jewels, and more purified than gold.”
To this day, Catholic churches around the world house the relics of saints “deposited..in a fitting place whither, being gathered together, as opportunity is allowed us, with joy and rejoicing, the Lord shall grant us to celebrate...both in memory of those who have already finished their course, and for the exercising and preparation of those yet to walk in their steps.”

The Martyrdom of Polycarp bears witness to the ancient Christian celebration of saintly lives, and to the collection of relics and the spiritual benefits of suffering. Written sometime shortly after his death in 155 AD, The Martyrdom of Polycarp is one of the oldest authentic examples of Christian Acts of the Martyrs, which tell similar tales of heroic faith and virtue under threat of death and persecution. Polycarp’s direct link to Apostolic times, having lived in the First Century and studied under one or more of the Apostles, gives to this text an added weight. We see here a Church shaped directly by Apostolic faith as transmitted by a hand-picked successor to the Apostles. The information we glean from this source adds yet another layer of understanding to our knowledge of authentic Christianity from the earliest centuries. If we wish to believe as the first Christian believed, we must accept with due reverence what was taught by a man such as Polycarp of Smyrna.