Faith and Culture Archives - Page 2 of 4

March 9, 2022 iacobusm Faith and Culture, Pro-Life

Random Selection Favors Religion, or, What Would Darwin Do?

I have set before you life and death, blessing and curse; therefore choose life, that you and your descendants may live. (Deuteronomy 30:19)

Spes in Domino — **The Marriage***, by Pietro Longhi, c. 1755*

An Angry God

Random selection appears to have doomed its most enthusiastic promoters to extinction.

I want to be clear that I am not taking issue in this post with the theory of evolution per se, or even with Darwin’s specific take on it in particular. Just as there is a “Spirit of Vatican II” that doesn’t concern itself overmuch with what the Second Vatican Council actually decreed, there is a Spirit of Darwinian Evolution that invokes evolutionary theory as a sort of charm that wards off the need for a Creator, but doesn’t feel the need to explain how. It’s that totemic use of evolution, with a quasi-mythical Darwin as its high priest, that I’m referring to here. My whole point, in fact, is that if materialist atheists were actually to apply evolutionary theory to themselves, they would have to admit that unbelieving humanity is doomed.

*Charles Darwin: Prophet of an angry god*

Let’s start with atheism itself. Atheism and the related materialist philosophy are often described as religions, or as quasi-religions. There’s something to that. For unbelievers, a dogmatic adherence to the tenets of their ideology often seems to play the role that religion and devotion to God fulfills in other people’s lives. It certainly is the case that many of those who reject religious belief treat Darwinian evolutionary theory with almost religious awe, and have turned the man himself into something of a god (Darwin Fish, anyone?), or at least a prophet. If he is a prophet, however, he’s a prophet in the mold of the mythological Greek prophetess Cassandra, whose prophecies were never believed. The evidence is pretty clear: random selection likes religion, but is not a fan of atheism.
Before I look into the matter more directly, I should provide a little context. In my years teaching in Catholic schools I often engaged in dialogue with young unbelievers who were enamored of proselytizing atheists like Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris (if a messenger of good news is an evangelist, what’s the messenger of bad news? A cacangelist? Just a thought.). In the course of these discussions, I came to an interesting realization: in Darwinian terms, atheism is a negative trait. In strictly materialist terms, that is, based on the clear, straightforward evidence, if we all became atheists, humanity would cease to exist in short order.

Believe the Science

I soon discovered that I was not at all the first person to come to this conclusion: I found a report on a site called Scilogs* about the work of German researcher Michael Blume, who says that

It is a great irony but evolution appears to discriminate against atheists and favor those with religious beliefs . . . Most societies or communities that have espoused atheistic beliefs have not survived more than a century.

Blume’s research shows that not just atheist societies, but unbelieving individuals consistently undermine their own posterity:

Blume took data from 82 countries measuring frequency of worship against the number of children. He found that those who worship more than once a week average 2.5 children [2.1 children per woman is the “replacement rate”, the minimum necessary to maintain a population at its current level] while those who never worship only 1.7 – again below replacement rate. There was also considerable variation in religious groups . . . Those without a religion, however, consistently averaged less than two per woman below the replacement , whereas those with the strongest and most fundamental religious beliefs had the most children.

Other researchers come to similar conclusions, and not only on the replacement of populations. On the most basic level, their own individual existence, unbelievers fall short of believers: statistically, those who are actively religious live four years longer.

Viruses of the Mind

What would Charles Darwin say? It would appear that Evolution is an angry and capricious god indeed, as it has clearly selected its most ardent adherents for extinction.

The curious hostility of the process of evolution to the materialist worldview casts a bright light on a contradiction that lies at the heart of the project of atheist proselytization: even if you believe it, why would you want to convince other people? The Dawkinses of the world will reply, as the Blume post says, “that religions are like viruses of the mind which infect people and impose great costs in terms of money, time and health risks.” This, it seems to me, actually defies reason: as I ask my unbelieving interlocutors, is it logical to conclude that a world populated by those who think we are nothing but matter created by meaningless, random natural forces will be a better, kinder place than a world that is the home of people who believe we have been created intentionally by a loving God? Can we reasonably expect that those who believe that we are answerable to nobody and morality is just a social construct will be more loving and generous than men and women who are convinced that we have been commanded by a benevolent Creator to love one another? It just doesn’t make sense.

God is Love (1 John 4:8)

And not surprisingly, the empirical evidence agrees. In addition to the demographic data above, anyone who has studied the history of Rome before and after the Christianization of the Empire, can attest to the humanizing effect of Christianity, and that it was that same Christian Church that civilized the barbarians who eventually overwhelmed the Roman state. Modern day sociological evidence shows the same thing: religious believers (especially Christians) report higher levels of personal happiness (see here, for instance), are more likely to join community and voluntary associations (even non-religious ones), and are more likely to vote. As is the case with the data cited by Blume, the more devout the believer, the stronger the effect. Arthur C. Brooks copiously documents the same results with a wealth of statistical evidence in his book Who Really Cares: believing Christians are much more involved in donating their time and talents for building up their societies, and are much more willing to spare their personal wealth to help others. The Catholic Church alone has founded and runs thousands of hospitals, schools, and countless other charitable projects around the world. Is there any organization founded or run by atheists that even comes close? I submit that the reasonable view is the one that fits the evidence, not the one that contradicts both the empirical data and common sense.

A final point involves getting beyond narrow materialist ideas of what constitutes reason and taking a more expansive (and more traditional) view. Is The Truth about humanity more likely to be something that diminishes humanity, that tears down our societies, makes our lives meaner, and maybe even leads to our annihilation? Or does it lift us up, does it promote flourishing societies and happy productive people? Jesus Christ says “I am The Way, The Truth, and The Life” (John 14:6): doesn’t the evidence bear him out?

*The article to which I refer has since been removed. You can find the same information, and more, on Blume’s own website: http://www.blume-religionswissenschaft.de/english/index_english.html

February 23, 2022 iacobusm Faith and Culture

One H*ll of an After School Activity: Meet the Satan Club

Eminent Scientist — *Satan in Dante’s Inferno, by Gustave Dore, 1861*

An Angel of Light . . . Not

Ah, I see the Satan Club is in the news again. This time spreading light. . . . well, not light, exactly . . . but speading something in the Milwaukee area. Don’t be alarmed, though, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel assures us that, despite their evocative name, the group “does not believe in a supernatural figure equal or similar to Christian definitions of Satan – rather, according to the Washington Post, the Satanic Temple [sponsor of the Satan Club] “rejects all forms of supernaturalism” and instead promotes “scientific rationality.” Right. Which is why they call themselves after that eminent scientist, Satan.

I first heard about the Satan Club several years ago, when they were bringing their special kind of joy to Portland, Oregon. They’re still up to their old tricks, posing as an angel of light when, in truth, they are something very different. In honor of Satan Clubs everywhere I’m republishing my original post, called “One H*ll of an After School Club.”

There’s A New Club In Town

Here’s some happy news: the Nehalem Elementary School in Portland, Oregon, has approved a “Satan Club” for its young (i.e., pre-teen) students. The club is sponsored by a group going by the felicitous name of The Satanic Temple. Does that, or does it not, sound uplifting?

I don’t doubt that there are some people who do consider it good news that there will be a club upholding the Prince of Darkness as a role model for youngsters. In particular, some of a more secular bent may appreciate that this puts those of us in with, shall we say, more traditional religious views, in something of a bind. After all, aren’t we always carping about religious freedom, and complaining about efforts to exclude religious belief from the public square? Don’t we claim that government has no business deciding what is legitimate religion and what is not? Are we not, in fact, hypocrites if we try to prevent the satanists from sharing their enthusiasm for Lucifer with the boys and girls at Nehalem Elementary School?

Keeping The Satan In Satanism?

The answer is, I think, simpler than it might at first appear. We absolutely ought to oppose as strenuously as we can anything as poisonous as a “Satan Club” in schools, especially for pre-teen children, and no, there is nothing whatsoever hypocritical about it. Consider the following:

Charming Devil — *Charming illustration from “Educatin With Satan” website*

The satanists themselves make it clear that they are not really a religion. For instance, The Satanic Temple is also trying to install an after school club in the Seattle, Washington area. The Seattle Times (story here) quotes Tarkus Claypool, campaign manager (um, “campaign manager”? Since when does a religion have a campaign manager?) for the group in that area, as saying: “We don’t worship a deity . . . We only see Satan as a metaphor for fighting religious tyranny and oppression.” This is a fairly common trope among Satanists, one you might have heard before. There was a similar quote in the original Fox News article about the Oregon Satan Club. That quote has since been removed, perhaps because the spokesperson in Portland also added that most satanists are really atheists, which tends to undercut even further their claim to religious status.

So, if the satanists don’t really believe in Satan, what is the purpose of their club? “Our curriculum is about teaching them logic, self-empowerment and reasoning”, according to Claypool, “The most Satanic thing about it is in the healthy snack — we have an apple.” Finn Rezz, speaking on behalf of the newly-approved Nehalem group in Oregon, adds that, in addition to “science and rational thinking”, the club will promote “benevolence and empathy for everybody.”

If only that were true. After all, if all they want to do is to promote rational thinking, why not a “Reason Club”? Why not a “Science and Empathy Club”? Those are perfectly legitimate viewpoints. Why not even an “Atheists Club”? However much we believers might dislike it, the same laws that allow Christian clubs on school grounds also protect the nonbelievers. The Satanic Temple has chosen a different route, however, and their choice of the Prince of Lies as their public persona tells us what they’re really about; it has nothing to do with reason or benevolence.

The Devil Is In The Details

To begin with, let’s talk about Satan. He has a track record: he’s been a public figure, so to speak, for millennia. If you were to go out on the street and ask people at random what the Devil represents, what responses will you get? Most people will, of course, answer “evil”, “sin”, “death”, “corruption”, etc. How many do you think will say “a metaphor for fighting religious oppression”? There may be a few, perhaps, but a very few indeed. No, Lucifer’s image has remained true what it is in Scripture, the source that introduced him to us. There we read:

He who commits sin is of the devil; for the devil has sinned from the beginning. (1 John 3:8)

He was a murderer from the beginning, and has nothing to do with the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks according to his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies. (John 8:44)

Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. (2 Corinthians 11:14)

Be sober, be watchful. Your adversary the devil prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour. (1 Peter 5:8)

*Image from the “Educatin With Satan” website*

How rational is it to hold up as a paragon of “reason” a figure who is the enemy of truth, a born liar who hides his true nature? How appropriate a personification of “empathy and benevolence” is someone known as a murderer who seeks to “devour” the unwary? My purpose here is not to make a Biblical argument against the Satan Club, I’m simply pointing out who and what its patron has always been known to be, and what he actually represents. One doesn’t need to believe in the truth of the Bible to recognize that Satan represents the exact opposite of what the Satan Club claims to promote.

“By Their Fruits You Shall Know Them”

In fact, their choice of the universally acknowledged personification of every evil as their public face brings to mind another applicable scripture passage: “You will know them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thorns, or figs from thistles? So, every sound tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears evil fruit.” (Matthew 7:16-17). Again, that’s just common sense, isn’t it? And what are the “fruits” the Satan club displays? Do the satanists act like people committed to reason, love, and kindness, and do their own self-explanations emphasize any positive message of their own . . . or are their fruits of a different kind? Let us look again at what they say about themselves. Seattle satanist Tarkus Claypool says of the Satan club, “It’s designed to be a counterpoint to the Good News program.” Portland Oregon’s Finn Rezz says that their Satan club “will be held on Wednesdays once a month at the same time as the Good News Club.” In fact, if we look at the FAQ page from the satanists’ “Educatin With Satan” website, we find that they really have more to say about this “Good News Club” than they do about their nominal patron demon, and certainly more than they do about reason, science, benevolence, and empathy put together. In several places they cite the Good News Club as their reason for being, and they even advise those who might wish to establish a Satan club (my bold):

Please keep in mind that The Satanic Temple is not interested in operating After School Satan Clubs in school districts that are not already hosting the Good News Club. However, The Satanic Temple ultimately intends to have After School Satan Clubs operating in every school district where the Good News Club is represented.

Good News: What’s Not To Like?

What are these Good News Clubs that so exercise the good people at the Satanic Temple? The Good News Clubs are a ministry of the Child Evangelism Fellowship. From CEF’s website they appear to adhere to a fairly traditional Evangelical Protestant understanding of Christianity. They describe the purpose of their Good News Clubs as follows:

CEF Website — *Photo from the CEF website*

Our ministry teaches morals and respect for others, helps build character, strengthens families, assists schools and encourages children. We frequently receive comments of support from school officials, bus drivers and parents which complement the positive change in the behavior of the boys and girls who attend Good News Clubs. Our mission is to serve the children, their parents, the school and the community.

They also give a succinct explanation of their methodology:

. . . trained teachers meet with groups of children in schools, homes, community centers, churches, apartment complexes, just about anywhere the children can easily and safely meet with their parent’s permission. Each week the teacher presents an exciting Bible lesson using colorful materials from CEF Press. This action-packed time also includes songs, Scripture memory, a missions story and review games or other activities focused on the lesson’s theme.

As with all CEF ministries, the purpose of Good News Club is to evangelize boys and girls with the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ and establish (disciple) them in the Word of God and in a local church for Christian living.

Here and in numerous other places they emphasize that they only meet children with their parents’ permission, and do not seek to supplant their family’s church. Also, while they are straightforward in proposing sin as something that infects everyone, at the same time they emphasize Christ’s saving love and forgiveness: “Now, because of what Jesus has done for you, you can have your sins forgiven. Read on to see how!”

J’Accuse!

Most fair-minded people, even if they take issue with the Child Evangelism Fellowship on some points of theology and ecclesiology, would have a hard time objecting to this program. Perhaps you won’t be surprised that the Satanic Temple doesn’t take a positive view. On their FAQ page they say:

[T]he twisted Evangelical teachings of The Good News Clubs “robs [sic] children of the innocence and enjoyment of childhood, replacing them with a negative self image, preoccupation with sin, fear of Hell, and aversion to critical thinking . . . ”

Forgive me for observing that this angry, accusatory smear seems neither rational nor objective, nor terribly benevolent or empathetic. In fact, it reminds me of nobody so much as the Satan Club’s standard bearer, of whom I observed in an earlier post (“‘Choice’ and The Father of Lies“):

For this reason he is called “the Devil”, from the Greek διάβολος (diabolos), which means “slanderer, perjurer, false accuser, and can also mean “deceiver, one who misleads”. It derives from the verb διαβάλλω (diaballo), whose original meaning is “drive through”, or destroy. Satan seeks to destroy us, eternally, by using falsehood and deception to separate us from God.

*Rational thought and benevolence: Seattle area Satanic Temple members (Seattle Times photo)*

Isn’t that just what the Satan club is about? They pose as “angels of light” with their talk of empathy and science, but it’s clear by their own words and deeds that their true agenda is to disparage and harass a particular Christian group, and separate Christian children from the religious beliefs of their families; the only plausible reason to choose as their public face Satan, the personification of mindless hatred, untruth, and evil from the Christian Scriptures, is to taunt and insult Christians; their stated policy is to form their clubs only where they can target the Evangelical Christian “Good News” clubs. Clearly, their purpose is not to promote a religion in which they assure us they don’t believe, and they manifestly don’t model the virtues they claim to advocate. They are in reality a hate group dedicated to denying Christian students the right to exercise their own right of free expression in their own clubs. Far from being hypocrites, we have solid legal and moral reasons to work to deny them access to public facilities.

February 22, 2022 iacobusm Faith and Culture

Feast Your Ears and Rest Your Eyes: Sacred Music and Catholic Culture Podcasts

Now there are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit; and there are varieties of service, but the same Lord; and there are varieties of working, but it is the same God who inspires them all in every one. (1 Corinthians: 4-6)

St. Paul, in the well-known passage above, reminds the Corinthians that the Lord works through all of us in different ways. In similar fashion, we all receive and understand in our own way as well. In my regular job as a teacher I’ve learned to employ a wide variety of approaches in order to reach the largest number of students. In the Age of Covid I have even learned to make my own instructional videos, a skill which I have occasionally applied here when Vimeo didn’t already have a recording of a sacred music selection I wanted to share on the blog.

It was in the spirit of offering different modes for different people that I began making podcasts of some of my posts last year. I have just added a second channel for sacred music posts (which I have not previously recorded as podcasts). To date I have published Vivaldi’s “Laudamus Te” and Mozart’s “Ave Verum Corpus.”

Please stop by the Podcast Page and let your ears do the work. Your eyes will thank you for the rest.

October 30, 2021 iacobusm Faith and Culture, The Liturgical Year

Christ is King of All . . . Even The Holidays

So Paul, standing in the middle of the Areopagus, said: “Men of Athens, I perceive that in every way you are very religious. For as I passed along, and observed the objects of your worship, I found also an altar with this inscription, “To an unknown god.” What therefore you worship as unknown, this I proclaim to you.” (Acts 17:22-23)

This coming Monday, November 1st, is the feast of All Saints Day, which means that Halloween will soon be past. It also means that Christmas soon will be coming, and not only are the geese getting fat but the doubters and mockers will be getting ready for another round of “demystifying” the Incarnation by pointing out (or making up) connections to pagan holidays and practices . . . and then we’ll go through it all again at Easter time. This seems a good time to take a few moments to reflect on the holiday (i.e., Holy Day) coming up in a day or two (and, even more to the point, its vigil Sunday night), and to look forward to those celebrations that are to come.

Good Cop, Bad Cop

First, a little background. Many, many years ago, in the days of my neo-pagan youth, I was intrigued to learn that the Christians, as they converted previously heathen peoples, intentionally built churches on what had been pagan holy sites: the Church of Santa Maria Sopra Minerva in Rome, for instance, was built on the ruins of what was believed to have been a temple dedicated to the Roman goddess of wisdom. In the same way, countless churches were built adjacent to, on top of, or even inside ancient circles and standing stones in Northwestern Europe. A whole series of these churches were dedicated to St. Michael the Archangel, scourge of Satan. The St. Michael churches (the most famous of which is the spectacular Mont St. Michel in Normandy, France) were typically situated on the hill tops that were considered especially sacred by the pre-Christian inhabitants.

*Church built in neolithic stone circle in Midmar, Aberdeenshire, Scotland (photo from https://online.aberdeenshire.gov.uk/)*

There was a two-fold purpose to this practice of co-opting heathen holy places, an ancient precursor to what we today call the “Bad Cop, Good Cop” routine (wherein the suspect confesses to the Nice Policeman, the Good Cop, hoping to earn his protection from the Mean Policeman, or Bad Cop). On the one hand, we have a concrete sign of the triumph of Christianity, a church built sometimes on the very foundations of a previous pagan establishment, sending as clear a message as one of those paintings of St. Michael with his foot on the Devil’s neck. Consider also the very name of the church of Santa Maria Sopra Minerva: “Holy Mary over Minerva”. The name does not simply tell us which building previously occupied the site, it boldly proclaims the victory of the Mother of God over the pagan goddess. This is the “Bad Cop” part of the equation.

We can see the “Good Cop” side of the coin in the passage from the Acts of the Apostles at the top of the page. St. Paul commends the Athenians for their religious devotion, which may well be an expression of a real desire to find God, but directed toward false divinities. Rather than condemn the Athenians for idolatry, he seeks to redirect their piety toward the True Lord. In much the same spirit, the Church seems to have concluded that previously idolatrous peoples would accept conversion more easily if they could worship the True God in the same places that they and their ancestors had been accustomed to commune with the old gods. We can see this as an example of “Baptizing the World”, of sanctifying what is good or neutral in the outside world, and using it to build up the Kingdom of God. And in cases such as this, how powerful must the effect have been when the new Christians had a tangible sign, in the old familiar place, of the Victory of Christ?

Our Battle Is Not with Flesh And Blood

*From the* **Nuremberg Chronicles***, 1493, workshop of Michael Wolgemut*

This is not to say that we should disregard those Christians who warn about the demonic aspects of Halloween: when Christ is out of the picture, all that’s left is death and corruption, and the powers of darkness are left in possession of the field of battle. I have noticed over the past couple of decades that, as the wider culture becomes less Christian, observances of Halloween are becoming both more elaborate and more grotesque. And there is always a risk when we set out to “Baptize the World” that, if we are not properly fortified and sustained by the Faith and the Sacraments, the World may instead have its way with us. We should not, however, let the Devil have the last word.

Our task is first to “put on the full armor of God” (see Ephesians 6:3-17) and then set out to reclaim Halloween for Christ, rather than surrender it to the hosts of the Evil One.

It is good to bear all this in mind as we approach the so-called “holiday season” (that is, what a more Christian era called the “Christmas Season”). We will hear a chorus of claims that our Feast of the Nativity is really “only” a thinly disguised form of the Roman Saturnalia, or some Mithraic feast, or some such other nonsense (never mind that the Birth of Jesus really happened, and these other things are based on fantasies). Even if it’s true (and most such claims are highly debatable) that Christmas took it’s gift-giving from Saturnalia, or Christmas trees from some pagan Germanic Yule tradition, and so on, well, so what? If these things ever did have pagan origins, now they are in the service of Christ, who “will reign until he puts all enemies under his feet” (1 Corinthians 15:25). So, be of good cheer, and when the time comes, throw another Yule Log on the fire, because Christ is King of all.

Featured image top of page: Mont St. Michel, from http://www.francejourneys.com/.

October 24, 2021 iacobusm Faith and Culture

For Such A Time As This: Powers, Principalities & The Culture Wars

The Culture Wars

I really don’t want to be a culture warrior. I’m willing to bet that you probably don’t want to be one, either. It seems, however, that there’s no hiding from the escalating clash of Weltanschauungen that’s invading every corner of our culture. Formerly neutral spaces, from bakeries to professional sports, have become battle fields. There’s no just-minding-your-own-business in the brave new world that has been thrust upon us: we must all march in the Pride Parade; we must testify to our racial guilt in a sort of nation-wide Stalinist show trial; we must all submit to an untested vaccine for a virus that poses virtually no serious threat to 99% of us, even those of us who have already had the dread illness and enjoy natural immunity. We must all join in, enthusiastically, or else. The push is relentless, and there doesn’t seem to be any logical endpoint . . . and there doesn’t seem to be any reason behind it at all.

It may feel like a dam has burst over the past couple of years, or that one of those enormous lagoons that collect hog waste has given way, drowning all the good and beautiful things in this world under a massive wave of . . . well, you know. And while I believe it’s true that recent events have brought greater visibility to the very real conflict that’s raging throughout our society, the conflict itself has been there all along. The culture war itself is only a surface manifestation of teh real war. It’s been with us from the very beginning, and it runs much, much deeper than we can imagine.

The Armor of God

St. Paul discusses this same endless war in the sixth chapter of his Letter to the Ephesians. I’ve briefly cited this passage in earlier posts, but I think it’s worth looking at it in greater length:

Put on the whole armor of God,that you may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil. For we are not contending against flesh and blood, but against the principalities, against the powers, against the world rulers of this present darkness, against the spiritual hosts of wickedness in heavenly places. Therefore take the whole armor of God, that you may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand. Stand therefore, having girded your loins with truth, and having put on the breastplate of righteousness, and having shod your feet with the equipment of the gospel of peace; besides all these, taking the shield of faith, with which you can quench all the flaming darts of the evil one. And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God. Pray at all times in the Spirit, with all prayer and supplication. To that end keep alert with all perseverance, making supplication for all the saints, and also for me, that utterance may be given me in opening my mouth boldly to proclaim the mystery of the gospel, for which I am an ambassador in chains; that I may declare it boldly, as I ought to speak. –Ephesians 6:11-20

“Put on the whole armor of God,that you may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil.” -Ephesians 6:11

St. George Fighting the Dragon by Raphael, 1505

St. Paul’s explanation makes sense of the utter insanity that is currently reigning over our society: we are engaged in a Spiritual Battle, we collectively, and each one of us personally. It has always been this way, and will be until Christ comes again in glory. The nature of the battle is constantly changing: for individual believers there is always a personal, internal struggle, but there is also a more external, public conflict which changes and ebbs and flows over time and in different places. The so-called “Culture Wars” are simply the form this external conflict is taking in our day.

“Could it be . . . ?”

If the cultural war is really spiritual warfare, then, who is the real antagonist? This becomes tricky, not because we don’t know, but because saying so in our current climate is difficult. Those of us of a certain age will remember the Flip Wilson Show. One of the comedian’s most successful gags was a character called “Geraldine”, actually Wilson himself in none-too-convincing drag, whose most memorable laugh-line was “The devil made me do it!” More recently, Dana Carvey’s “Church Lady” on Saturday Night Live always provoked uproarious laughter from the audience when she said “Could it be . . .(pregnant pause) . . . SATAN?!?” For a long time now, the message in the popular culture has been that anyone who actually attributes anything to the Evil One is, well, ridiculous (interesting, by the way, that both of the examples above involve men dressed as women). We are set up to be dismissed as unserious cranks if we see the hand of the Devil anywhere.

There are some who are still willing to speak out, however. Just a few years ago, one South American cleric described a law legalizing same sex marriage as “a move by the devil, looking to confuse and deceive all children of God” (interesting that this same cleric, who now has a rather prominent position in Rome, was more recently named “Person of the Year” by the gay magazine The Advocate). Closer to home, I once heard a speaker on Catholic radio arguing that one reason why it’s so difficult to make any headway with those who have left the faith and are now clinging to new enthusiasms like gay marriage, global warming, Marxism, etc. is that those beliefs have taken on a religious significance for them, and are occupying the place reserved in our hearts for God. Those other things, of course, are poor substitutes indeed for the Real Thing, the One who made us for himself, as St. Augustine tells us, and to Whom we can say “our hearts are restless until they rest in You” (inquietum est cor nostrum donec requiescat in Te). For just that reason they cling to their false spiritual consolations all the harder, in the unconscious hope that if they tighten their grip just a little bit more, they’ll feel fulfilled; but such things do not ultimately satisfy. Those things in fact separate us from the one thing that can satisfy us, they divide us – and who is it who is called the Divider, in Greek ho Diabolos (ὁ διάβολος)? Could it be . . . ? Who else, but Satan?

You’ve Gotta Serve Somebody

None of us is immune to the temptations of the Great Divider. St. Ignatius of Loyola represented this internal battle as a conflict between the Spirit of Jesus and the Spirit of Satan, and pictured it as Two Standards, as in Roman battle standards, around which the armies of each Spirit gather. When we follow the Standard of Jesus internally, we serve in his army out in the world as well, and so it is also the case of the other side. As St. Paul tells us, our battle is with “spiritual hosts of wickedness in heavenly places”. Having spent many years among the secularists I know that the majority of those who serve in that camp are well-meaning, and honestly believe they are on the side of good and righteousness. True righteousness, however, as St. Paul tells us, is not something we create for ourselves, it’s part of the Armor of God. Without that Armor, without the “Gospel of Peace”, and without “all prayer and supplication” we will not “be able to withstand in the evil day.” When we separate ourselves from God, or don’t avail ourselves of all the spiritual arms with which he provides us, we are helpless against the wiles of the Divider. We need to remember this in our interactions with those who are on the other side. We need to speak the truth in love (Eph 4:15), and aim for the conversion of their hearts, and, ultimately, their redemption, not their destruction.

This mission of conversion is the reason that St. Paul asks that “utterance may be given me in opening my mouth boldly to proclaim the mystery of the gospel, for which I am an ambassador in chains; that I may declare it boldly, as I ought to speak”. Jesus rallies an Army of Love around His Standard. That’s why we engage in the culture wars: not because we like brawling (see Eph. 4:15 above), and not to inflate our egos (Scripture is chock full of warnings about getting “puffed up”), but to win hearts and souls for Christ.

For Such A Time As This

We are all called to action, and yet, as I said at the beginning, most of us would much rather just be left alone. The Book of Esther, which provided the Scriptural Readings in last week’s Office of Readings, casts a revealing light on this predicament. The Jewish maiden Esther has been made queen by the Persian emperor Ahasuerus (either Xerxes or Artaxerxes). At the same time, the evil counselor Haman has persuaded the emperor to kill all the Jewish inhabitants of his empire. Her adopted father Mordecai asks her to intervene with the Ahasuerus on behalf of her people, but Esther is afraid of failure. She tells Mordecai:

All the king’s servants and the people of the king’s provinces know that if any man or woman goes to the king inside the inner court without being called, there is but one law; all alike are to be put to death, except the one to whom the king holds out the golden scepter that he may live. And I have not been called to come in to the king these thirty days. (Esther 4:11)

Mordecai reminds her that her fate is not really in the king’s hands, but is and always has been in God’s hands:

“Think not that in the king’s palace you will escape any more than all the other Jews. For if you keep silence at such a time as this, relief and deliverance will rise for the Jews from another quarter, but you and your father’s house will perish. And who knows whether you have not come to the kingdom for such a time as this?” (Esther 4:13-14)

Esther has not become queen for her own sake, Modecai suggests, but precisely so that she’ll be in a position to save the Jewish people, all by God’s design. We all have likewise been consciously and intentionally put here by our Loving Father, in this exact time and place. Yes, the times are evil, but who can say that each one of us has not been created for just such a time as this?

Featured image top of page: Esther Before Ahasuerus, by Artemisia Gentileschi, c. 1630

October 12, 2021 iacobusm Faith and Culture, The Liturgical Year

Keep the “Hallowed” in Halloween

We are well into the season of Autumn, and here in Northern New England you can feel it and see it: cool days, cold nights, and bright flashes of colorful leaves set against deep blue skies. It’s not only the trees that herald the season: the retail stores, with a wide array of ghastly, ghoulish, and gory Halloween accessories on display, evoke plenty of color of their own. Given all that, it’s not too early in the season for a Halloween rant.

Let me hasten to add that I am not anti-Halloween on principle: I have defended the holiday in the past against the spurious charge that it is merely a remnant of our dark, pre-Christian, pagan past. We do need to remember that whatever pagan elements it has picked up and baptized along the way, Halloween is really Christian in origin. It started as part of a celebration of the Communion of Saints, but it is also a way in which believers can mock death and “the principalities, the powers, the world rulers of this present darkness, the spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places” (Ephesians 6:12). In making sport of the spawn of Satan we celebrate Christ’s Victory over Death (1 Corinthians 15:55-58) . . . that is, if we truly acknowledge the Lordship of Jesus Christ.

*The Temptation of Christ on the Mountain*
by Duccio di Buoninsegna, 1308-1311

Here, however, is where we start to run into trouble with contemporary Halloween celebrations: even if it is not primarily the product of pre-Christian paganism, what is the role of the holiday in a post-Christian society, a society that no longer acknowledges the Lordship of Christ? I was reminded of the relevance of this question recently when I was in one of the aforementioned retail stores. I overheard a little boy who was admiring the creepy Halloween paraphernalia remark that, in his house, Halloween was by far the most important holiday. This observation was smilingly confirmed by his mother. I had to ask myself, what exactly was this family celebrating? After all, whatever its Christian origin, All Hallow’s Eve is a mere afterthought compared to the great feasts of Easter, Christmas, and Epiphany (and any number of lesser celebrations), observances that go straight to the heart of the Mystery of Christ. Anybody who doesn’t give precedence to those holidays is unlikely to be observing Halloween as any sort of Christian holy day at all.

As Christian belief and observance have declined, Halloween celebrations have become increasingly more elaborate, and correspondingly more macabre.

The little boy’s comment also ties in with something I’ve noticed more and more over the past few decades: as Christian belief and observance have declined, Halloween celebrations have become increasingly more elaborate, and correspondingly more macabre. In years past the emphasis was on the supernatural: ghosts, goblins, witches and demons. Now at least as much attention is paid to simple violence and gore: what does “crime scene” tape have to do with those powers, principalities, and spiritual hosts of wickedness? We have forgotten Christ’s Victory, and so are left with only Death and Corruption, apparently unchallenged. A society that celebrates death and corruption for its own sake is, I submit, a society in deep, deep trouble.

As I said at the outset, I am not against Halloween per se, and I don’t advocate its abolition. I do suggest that we who are Christians observe it in its proper context, including its original function as the prelude to All Saints Day (which is why, after all, it is called “Hallow’s Eve”). You have no doubt heard in recent years calls to “Keep Christ in Christmas” . . . let’s also keep the Hallowed in Halloween.

Featured image: Christ Triumphant over Sin and Death (Salvator Mundi) by Peter Paul Rubens, 1618

September 19, 2021 iacobusm Faith and Culture

Why Would You Want Satan As A Mascot?

In their case the god of this world [the Devil] has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the likeness of God. (2 Corinthians 4:4)

I don’t watch professional sports these days, as their main appeal was always as a refuge, a “safe space” if you will, away from unpleasant things like politics. Sadly, politics have invaded and ruined sports as completely as they have so many other things in our society. Nonetheless, a quick glance at the Major League Baseball standings the other day brought to mind an old blog post I published a few years back about the odd place the Devil’s image plays in our culture. What does that have to do with baseball? Read on to find out.

This is not actually about sports, by the way. It starts, in fact, over a quarter century ago at a staff meeting for a high school newspaper of which I was faculty moderator. One student, seemingly out of blue, remarked “When you think about it, why would you want Satan as a mascot?” He had been leafing through a book of clip-art (do such things exist anymore?) when, in the mascot section, he came across several pages of containing images of “devils”. I had never thought about it in those terms before, but he had a point: why in heaven’s name would you want the Prince of Darkness as your mascot? I’ve never since been able to consider devil logos as innocent and harmless.

Now, there are many folks out there who will say that I’m making a big deal out of nothing. As Catholics, however, we should know better: we of all people should understand the power of images. After all, what is the point of the great art, stained glass windows, cathedrals and Gregorian chant, the whole “smells and bells” routine? Why else the traditional condemnation of “impure” images, and the stern warnings to steer clear of their dangers? We know from centuries of experience (and modern brain research confirms it) that images have a profound, often unconscious, impact on the psyche.

In the case of mascots the connection is explicit. They are the modern-day descendants of the ancient tribal totems, which were believed to confer their most prominent qualities (e.g., the bear’s strength, the wolf’s ferocity, etc.) on the people that had adopted them. While we no longer attribute numinous powers to them, groups still choose mascots (today mascots are often people as well as animals) because they represent certain desirable qualities that the group would like to associate with themselves, and that they would like their members to emulate. For example, American Indians have long been a popular mascot for athletic teams in the United States (or perhaps I should say, had been) because of their reputation as brave and tenacious warriors.

Images and logos on clothing serve a similar function for individuals: they depict things and ideas with which we want to associate ourselves, such as admired athletic teams and players, schools which we have attended, maybe a political message of some kind or some other symbol of personal importance (marijuana leaves are popular among a certain set). The point is that we wear images on our person to tell the world something about us (and, usually, to tell ourselves something about ourselves).

It was for this reason that my lovely bride was somewhat dismayed a few years ago when she went online to look for t-shirts for our children. She visited the site of a well-known retailer that she had often used before, but found that this time a wide array of children’s clothing was adorned with skulls and similarly macabre images. Now, I know that such images have been around for a long time, although usually displayed by a very narrow segment of the population; today they are becoming ever more pervasive, and less and less remarkable. What does it say about our culture that we seem to think nothing of decorating our children, even little girls, with images of death and corruption? What qualities are we holding up for emulation to these young people who are still forming their sense of self?

This is the bottom line: if we surround ourselves with ugliness and grotesquerie, we shouldn’t be surprised to find our world growing more ugly and grotesque; if we dress our children that way, why should we expect them to aspire to beauty and nobility? That’s no way to evangelize the world. We need to say “no!” to the Culture of Death, even in a matter as “trivial” as a Jolly Roger t-shirt. Don’t they always say “the Devil is in the details”? As St. Paul puts it:

Finally, brethren, what is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is gracious, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things. (Philippians 4:8)

Not only is that Holy Scripture, it’s plain common sense.

A final thought: In the first version of this post seven years ago I wrapped up with the story of the baseball team known as the Tampa Bay Rays (here’s the baseball connection for you sports fans out there). The Rays played for the first time in 1998. For their first ten years the name was actually the Tampa Bay Devil Rays (named after a fish, to be sure, not the Prince of Darkness himself). In those first ten seasons the team finished in last place nine times, second to last once. In 2008, the first season after the team had exorcised the word “Devil” from its name, they went to the World Series as American League champions. Coincidence, perhaps, but who knows?

Now, in the twelve years since that first World Series appearance the Rays have made the post-season five more times, including a second appearance in the World Series last year, where the Los Angeles Dodgers defeated them in six games. The team currently has the best record in the American League, and is stands a good chance to be in the Series again next month. The point is, since dropping the Devil, they have gone from consistentlybeing the worst team in baseball to one of the best. Do you suppose that if they moved across the bay and changed their name to the Saint Peterburg Rays they’d actually win the World Series?

September 12, 2021 iacobusm Faith and Culture

We Came, We Saw . . . God Conquered – Jan Sobieski and The Holy Name of Mary

Jesus looked at them and said, “With men it is impossible, but not with God; for all things are possible with God.” (Mark 10:27)

Many of us are upset, quite rightly, that twenty years after our intervention in Afghanistan, we seem to have accomplished little aside from the deaths of several thousands of our young men and women. The jihadist terrorists known as the Taliban are as firmly in control of the country as they were twenty years ago, only enriched by eighty-plus billion dollars of the most advanced military equipment, and buoyed by the prestige of having prevailed over the world’s greatest military power.

Twenty years, however, is next to nothing in the history of the long struggle between Christianity and Islam. Today, September 12th, we commemorate one of the great victories in that contest. On this date in 1683 a Christian army led by Polish King John III Sobieski defeated the Muslim Ottoman Turks in battle, freeing the city of Vienna from a two months long siege and freeing Europe, for a time, from the fear of Islamic conquest.

*The Madonna of the Roses*, by William-Adolphe Bouguereau (1903)

The siege of Vienna in 1683 was the final salvo of a period lasting almost a millennium, starting when Charles Martel’s victory at Tours in 732 stemmed the first Muslim incursion into Europe, during which the Christian West was constantly under the threat of subjugation by the followers of Mohammed. Had Charles Martel failed, or Sobieski, or any of the other Christian commanders in between, our world today would be very different. Consider what Tunisia, Libya, or Egypt might be like today – or Syria – if they had remained part of Christendom. Does anyone doubt that things there would be better, probably much better?

And we need to bear in mind that this was really a struggle not simply of peoples or of nations, but between Christendom and Islam. Sobieski’s force was called The Holy League, the same name borne by that alliance which defeated the Turks in the naval battle of Lepanto in the previous century. Like those earlier Christian soldiers, who prayed the Rosary before going into battle with the Turkish fleet, Sobieski’s army prayed: they attended Mass, after which Sobieski formed up his army and “commended their mission and their souls to the care of the Blessed Virgin.” After victory was achieved he informed the Pope that “we came, we saw, God conquered”, turning Julius Caesar’s proud boast to the Roman Senate into a humble acknowledgement of God’s saving Grace. In acknowledgement of the intercession of the Blessed Mother in the Christian victory, Pope Innocent XI designated September 12th as the Feast of the Holy Name of Mary.

There are two points that stand out here. One is that we need to recognize that sometimes it is necessary to fight; our opponents have been at it for almost a millennium and a half, and there’s no indication that they are any more interested in compromise, or anything short of total victory, than they were at any point since Mohammed emerged from his cave with the Koran. Certainly the outlook and behavior we’re seeing from the Taliban or ISIS is nothing new: during the battle for Vienna, the Turks murdered 30,000 defenseless Christian hostages.

The second, more important, point is that fighting itself is not enough: we will fail unless we rely on God: “Unless the LORD builds the house”, says Psalm 127,“those who build it labor in vain.” Our prevailing secular culture has shown it can’t do the job. Today’s Muslims, enabled by the moral decay and post-Christian depopulation of the continent, are gradually achieving by peaceful migration (although it’s becoming less peaceful) the capture of Europe that eluded the strongest armies of their forebears. The formerly Christian West is defeating itself before the literal battle even commences.

Today’s celebration of the Holy Name of Mary reminds us how little we can accomplish by our own efforts, and how completely we are in the hands of the Lord. Our only hope is to return to God and, as did John Sobieski, to make Jesus Christ the general of our armies.

Featured image top of page: Jan III Sobieski Sending Message of Victory to the Pope after the Battle of Vienna, by Jan Matejko (1880)

August 19, 2021 iacobusm Faith and Culture

The End Point of Progressive Christianity

Where there is no prophecy the people cast off restraint,but blessed is he who keeps the law. (Proverbs 29:18)

We’re not cats, bats, or moray eels, as I pointed out in a recent post. “We humans are different. We are, again, unique among the world’s creatures. We’re not governed by instinct, we alone can make free choices about how we act.” Just because we have free choice, however, does not mean that all possible choices are good, and it certainly does not mean we can simply disregard the experience of our ancestors. We disregard the value of tradition at our peril.

And yet tradition is not a very fashionable concept in some quarters. Nonetheless, since today is Thursday, which (traditionally) we honor as “Throwback Thursday”, I’m reposting a piece from a few years ago exploring why we might want to pay a little more attention to what the Romans called the mos maiorum.

Many years ago, shortly after I had returned to the Church after my youthful sojourn among the secular agnostics, I read a book called The Education of Henry Adams. Although it doesn’t sound like it from the title, it is an autobiography, and the author was the grandson of U.S. President John Quincy Adams, and the great-grandson of the second President and revolutionary leader John Adams. The one thing from Adams’ book that made the largest impression on me was the author’s dissatisfaction with (among other things) the spiritual emptiness of the Unitarian churches which his family attended; here, the drama of Salvation had been reduced to little more than guidelines for moral conduct. It struck me that these same churches, just a few generations earlier, had been peopled by zealous Calvinists fleeing the Anglican Church because it had, in their view, strayed too far from the Gospel. What had happened? How had they changed so much, so quickly?

It occurred to me that the cause of the erosion of their faith was that they had cut themselves off from the guidance of the Apostolic Church, from the power of its Tradition and its infallible Magisterium, from the Church that St. Paul had named “The pillar and the foundation of the Truth” (1 Timothy 3:15). After all, however zealous our belief, however sincere our intentions, we fallible humans tend to wander off course without direction from above. We can see the proof not only in Henry Adams’ Unitarians, but in Protestantism in general. All the historic Reformation churches have gone through numerous changes, not just in externals but in doctrine, and have continued splintering until it is impossible to say how many separate ecclesial bodies there are. Whatever the eccentricities or errors of individual Catholics, however (including rather significant failings on the part of some Catholics in rather prominent positions of authority), and despite the two thousand years’ worth of baggage, the Catholic Church today is still, in its essentials, the Church of St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Augustine, and the Apostles.

A cafeteria is not a Wedding Feast

Let me emphasize that this has nothing to do with the virtue or sincerity of individual Christians of any denomination. I know and have worked with many non-Catholic Christians who live their faith in an exemplary way, and many Catholics who do not (including, sometimes, myself, I am sorry to say). Over the long run, however, we can’t do it ourselves: we need Christ’s help, in the guidance of his Church and by the Grace that he confers through the Sacraments administered by that Church. More than that, it is through the Church and its sacraments that we most directly encounter Christ in this world.

Of course there are Catholics, too, who don’t understand how essential the Church is to their relationship with their Lord. They want to strip her of the things that they don’t like, but still receive the sacraments (when it suits them) and present themselves as Catholic. A few years ago I ran across an essay by David Carlin called “Reducing Religion Down”, subtitled “How Liberal Christians Shrink the Faith”, in which Carlin dissects this phenomenon, which he calls “Liberal Christianity” (we could also use the term “Progressive Christianity”), among both Catholics and other Christians. He explains that

Liberal Christianity is made up of three reductions:

1. The reduction of religion to morality.

2. The reduction of morality to love of neighbor.

3. The reduction of love of neighbor to tolerance plus welfare programs.

Notice that each of Carlin’s “reductions” becomes less demanding, and has less to do with our relationship with God. Christian Faith becomes only a minor encumbrance, as Carlin explains:

Castle Acre Priory, from Wikimedia Commons

The reduction of love of neighbor to tolerance plus welfare programs makes it relatively easy for very busy men and women to be good Christians. Being tolerant of almost everything except murder, rape, arson, bank robbery, child molestation, and a small number of other crimes – this is something you can do, at least once you’ve developed a knack for it, with a minimum expenditure of time and energy. As for loving by means of welfare programs, all you have to do is pay your taxes and vote the straight Democratic ticket.

This is not so different from the process we saw at work in Henry Adams’ Unitarian Church, and it’s internal logic leads, in the end, to only one thing. Here’s how Carlin wraps up:

Speaking roughly and generally, liberal Christianity (and liberal Judaism too, for what I’m saying applies mutatis mutandis to Judaism as well) is a way-station – a temporary motel, so to speak – on the great ideological highway that leads from classical Christianity at one terminus to atheism at the other.

It makes perfect sense, once you think about it: having reduced the fullness of Christian faith to a mere moral code, and a pretty minimal one at that, there is no longer any perceived need for salvation: we can save ourselves by following “the law” (take that, St. Paul!). There is therefore no need for the Incarnation, Crucifixion, and Resurrection of Jesus Christ, and in fact no need for God at all; we’ve got it all covered, thank you very much.

Diseases of the Soul

Naturally, morality is very important: immoral acts lead to bad consequences in this world and can separate us and others from God forever; we are quite capable of sinning our way into Hell . . . but we cannot, by any effort of our own, earn our way into Heaven. For that we need God’s Grace, which is administered through his Church . . . which, as we have seen, is just what those whom David Carlin calls liberal Catholics are ready to jettison in all but name.

I am reminded of Ursula LeGuin’s novel The Lathe of Heaven, in which the character called Dr. Haber, having discovered the power to turn dreams into reality, eventually turns the world into a living nightmare composed of fragments of different times and different realities, in which nothing really fits or works. At one point, hoping to remove sources of division between people, Haber creates a world in which everyone is the same shade of gray, with the vast variety of different characteristics that make each of us distinct persons erased. I don’t think that LeGuin was a believing Christian, but she created a perfect picture of what happens when we, with our finite understanding, try to remake God’s world in our own image: a monstrous absurdity in which, in the end, the human person is crushed.

Detail from a painting by Nivanh Chanthara

Finally, let’s return briefly to poor old Henry Adams. His autobiography exudes ennui and malaise (what one of Ursula LeGuin’s characters called “French diseases of the soul”), a sense of boredom, pointlessness, and dissatisfaction. He seems acutely aware of his own insignificance in the shadow of greater forebears. He has been given a moral code, but no sense that he plays a unique but indispensable role in the vastness of creation . . . and no realization that he is loved eternally and infinitely. The thing is, if we want to be loved, we must be prepared to love in turn, and Jesus says, “Those who love me will keep my commandments” (John 14:15). If we only keep the commandments that suit us, however, we don’t love Jesus, we really love ourselves . . . except we don’t, because true love can only be directed to an Other. And a solitary existence without the Love of God is, in the end, a very sad, lonely way to spend eternity.

*I am usually reluctant to apply the secular political terms “liberal” and “conservative” to religion; I use the terminology here because that is what Carlin uses.

Featured Image top of page: Marriage Feast at Cana by Gaetano Gandofi, 1766

August 10, 2021 iacobusm Faith and Culture

Spiritual Warfare, the Chain of Command, and St. Equitius

“You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you.” -attributed to Leon Trotsky

There’s a battle raging, and we’re all part of it, like it or not. The growing intensity of the Culture War that’s engulfing our society is just a surface manifestation of the real war that’s been underway since Satan was cast out of Heaven. In my recent post on St. Ignatius Loyola we looked at the idea of being a “Soldier for Christ”. This is not simply an analogy; in fact, we could argue that the wars we fight in this world are the images of the great eternal combat, the true war, between the army of God and the forces of the Devil.

The term Church Militant expresses the understanding that waging this spiritual war is our primary occupation on earth. The Church Militant is one part of a traditional tripartite division of the Communion of Saints, which is the Church throughout time: the Church Milititant (those of us still living in this world), the Church Penitent (the souls in Purgatory), and the Church Triumphant (those Christians in the presence of God in Heaven). “Militant” means “soldiering” in Latin. Being a Christian in this life means being on the front lines. Just as in a modern army there are as many as ten support troops for every front line soldier with his rifle, so in the Communion of Saints the Church Penitent and the Church Triumphant have our back.

It is also true that for every officer there are numerous enlisted soldiers. We can see parallells in the Church Triumphant. There are many saints who have played a large leadership role in the life of the Church, and who are well-known to most Catholics (although not as familiar as they once were). St. Clare of Assisi, whose feast we celebrate today [August 11th], is one of these officers of the Church Triumphant. If we look at the list of saints for today’s date at catholic.org, however, we’ll find fourteen other canonized saints who share the feast day with her. These are the enlisted men and women among the canonized saints, whose names and stories we may not know, but who all played their part in the eternal war. They all intercede for us still, and their lives can serve as model and inspiration.

One of those fourteen foot soldiers of the Church Triumphant who has his feast day today is St. Equitius, whose story is told by Pope St. Gregory the Great in his Dialogues. It seems Equitius was one of those holy men and women who sought a life solitude with The Lord by living as a hermit. As is often the way, the hermit’s sanctity attracted a growing number of followers, whom he eventually organized into a formal monastic establishment at Terni. Despite the leadership role that was thrust upon him Equitius never received priestly ordination. His lack of holy orders prompted complaints, and so the Pope sent a priest, a certain Julian, to investigate. Before Julian’s investigation reached a conclusion, however, the issue was settled by the Pope himself, who was prompted by a vision to bestow his blessing upon the saint. By the time of his death in 570 Equitius had founded a number of monasteries.

There is something very inspiring about the story of St. Equitius that resonates beyond his time and place. We have the individual believer, Equitius, who through his “reputation for sanctity” draws more people out of the world and into the Church, and strengthens the faith of those who already believe. He models the mission given to all Christians to sanctify the world. He is a layman, however, and some people are afraid that he is straying into territory rightly reserved for ordained clergy. The Pope, who embodies the clergy’s threefold mission of sanctifying, governing, and teaching investigates; under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, he gives his assent and support to St. Equitius’ holy work.

This is a nice illustration, I think, of a couple of simple but important ideas. First, we are all called to sanctity and to mission. At the same time, we all have different roles, and we need to respect the individual missions God has entrusted to each of us. There is a lot of confusion in recent years about the importance of preserving, and observing, these important distinctions. Sometimes the laity’s call to holiness is misunderstood to mean that lay people should be moving into the sanctuary and acting more like priests, who are in turn expected to behave more like the laity.

The Church Militant (detail from featured image top of page)

But that’s not how it’s supposed to work. Above I compared the Church Triumphant to an army, with the great saints the officers and the more obscure saints the common soldiers. The analogy applies even more fittingly to the Church Militant, the “soldiering” Church here on earth. Here the bishops and priests are the officers, who train us lay people and lead us into battle; we are the common soldiers who apply our “training” to the fight on the front lines, i.e., in the world. If instead we try to knock our general off his horse and hop up in his place, we are really fighting for the enemy. The army is only successful when everyone carries out his or her own assigned mission within the chain of command.

Saint Equitius understood that his mission to sanctify the world by living a life of holiness and attracting others to that life was more importasnt than his desire for solitude, and likewise he did not seek for himself the authority or status of the priesthood. His superior officer, the Pope, yielded to higher authority when he suspended his own investigation after receiving a dispatch from Supreme Headquarters ordering him to give his blessing to the saint. We all serve our Lord best when we are faithful to the role we have been given. That’s a good lesson for all of us.

Featured image top of page: Blessed is the Host of the King of Heaven (alternatively known as Church Militant). Russian icon, ca. 1550 – 1560. Tretyakov Gallery.

I haven’t been able to find out the source of the image of The Church Triumphant that appears in the body of the article above. I welcome any information on the artist or location.