A Special Kid
This article is about a joyful little boy who has already experienced so much loss in his young life. He is moving into my neighborhood today and I am to help in his catechism. I feel deeply honored to be apart of his story!
Worth Reading
This very interesting article, referred to me by the astute Jon McRay, is worth reading, analyzing, and talking about.
So there you have it, about one blog post every several months!
So there you have it, about one blog post every several months!
Egypt, Protest, and Langugage
I'm eager to hear how the Egyptian revolution turns out and, for the moment, am excited for them all. It appears to be, relatively speaking, one of the least violent revolutions of our era. (How might Americans need to interpret these events in light of a long history of funding and arming Mubarak...?)
Anyway, I find this video, released prior to the events, helpful interpreting the power of protest and the general functioning of language in human relations, love, and power.
Anyway, I find this video, released prior to the events, helpful interpreting the power of protest and the general functioning of language in human relations, love, and power.
Our Murderous Guilt in Afghanistan
A friend of mine is headed to Afghanistan for some peace work. Her co-laborer wrote the following piece. It brings to mind Jesus' words (paraphrased from Matt and Luke), "All of the blood shed from Abel to Zechariah is on you if you say the violence against the innocent is not our fault."
This also reminds me that we are the rich man, Afghans are Lazarus. Lazarus went to the bosom of Abraham and the rich man went to the fires of hell.
Hunger and Anger in Afghanistan
by Kathy Kelly
The Obama administration has announced the imminent release of a
December Review which will evaluate the U.S. troop presence in
Afghanistan. The military has yet to disclose what the specific
categories for evaluation will be. Yet many people in Afghanistan
might wish that hunger along with their anger over attacks against
civilians could top the list.
In Afghanistan, a nation where 850 children die every day, about a
quarter of the population goes hungry. The UN says that 7.4 million
Afghans live with hunger and fear of starvation, while millions more
rely on food help, and one in five children die before the age of
five.
"Do you think we like to live this way?" an Afghan man asked me, last
October, as he led us toward a primitive tent encampment on the
outskirts of Kabul. "Do you see how we live? The cold and the rain are
coming. How will we protect our children?" He flicked his forefinger
on a weather-beaten blanket covering a tent. The blanket immediately
ripped.
Standing next to him was a man who quietly handed me three crumpled
photos, never lifting his eyes from the ground. The spokesperson
identified the man as his cousin. The first picture showed his
cousin's ruined home. A U.S. aerial bombardment had destroyed the
dwelling. The next pictures were of two bloodied children. "All of his
children were killed," the spokesperson said. "All his family, his
wife, his five children, by an attack from the air." He went on to
explain that they had been goat herders in the San Gin province of
Afghanistan. They were happy with their lives, selling yoghurt and
fattening their animals. A Taliban fighter had come to their village
at night. The U.S. apparently wanted to kill this fighter, but instead
they destroyed his cousin's family. "We couldn't stay there," the
spokesperson said, pointing to a picture of the debris that was once
his cousin's home. "We were afraid we might be hit again, so all of us
left. We are four families."
Inside one of the tents, a young mother welcomed me to sit down on the
only available cushion. It appeared that they slept on the ground. The
families share one pot over a fire pit, and a few utensils. They also
have access to a water pump. Near their area is a tent where they join
for prayers, and also one that is used for classes. One man begged us
to tell the authorities that they have no medicines in the camp and
that many of the children are ill.
Days earlier, in far more comfortable setting, students at the Bamiyan
University, located in the central, mountainous province of Bamiyan,
had prodded us to comprehend their anger. In a straw poll, several
dozen were unanimous in stating that they want the U.S. to leave their
country. Several insisted that most U.S. people don't understand or
care about the impact of U.S. warfare in Afghanistan. An engineering
student held up a copy of the Time Magazine cover which showed a young
Afghan woman whose nose was horribly mutilated, allegedly as
punishment for defying men in her family. Time Magazine's accompanying
headline announced that the story would explain why U.S. troops must
remain in Afghanistan. "Do Americans care more about noses than
fingers?" the student asked. "Who will cover the stories about fingers
that are cut off?!" I felt embarrassed not to know what he was talking
about. Several weeks later, I read a New York Times article about a
trial taking place at an army base in Washington State. The article
shed light on the student's question. A U.S. Staff Sergeant from the
5th Stryker Combat Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division was charged with
leading a conspiracy to randomly target and kill unarmed Afghan
civilians. He and four other soldiers faced murder charges. The staff
sergeant is alleged to have planted evidence to cover up the murders
and to have carved fingers off corpses which he kept as war souvenirs.
Although the U.S. military forbids soldiers to mutilate corpses and go
on killing sprees that target civilians, the U.S. occupying forces in
Afghanistan have bragged, in recent weeks, about increased capacities
to kill with ever more invulnerable weapons. A company of 16 Abrams
tanks was recently delivered to Afghanistan. "We've taken the gloves
off," said an unnamed U.S. military official, "and it has had huge
impact." (Washington Post, November 19, 2010) The 68 ton tanks fire
high explosive, white phosphorus and anti-personnel shells that can
destroy a house a mile away. Each tank costs 4.3 million dollars and
uses 3 gallons of jet fuel per mile.
The Pentagon is also sending 12,500 XM25 Individual Air Burst Weapons
to Afghanistan, one to each infantry squad and Special Forces team in
Afghanistan. The XM25 gun can fire a projectile that will travel the
length of eight football fields. "When fired, the projectile is
designed to explode directly above a target," says the Army Times,
"raining shrapnel down on an enemy crouched behind cover."
In a report to the November 2010 NATO conference held in Lisbon, 29
aid groups working in Afghanistan warned that the increases in air
attacks, the use of night raids, and the destruction of civilian
property contributes to "rapidly deteriorating" security for most
Afghans and a rise in civilian casualties. People who flee from U.S.
attacks face food insecurity, loss of income, lack of health care, and
homelessness. The aid groups' report is entitled "Nowhere to Turn."
Increasingly, Afghans living in war zones have nowhere to hide.
Commenting on impoverishment and displacement caused by military
offensives, a Pakistani op-ed recently compared hunger and anger to
two live wires. When the wires touch, they create an incandescent and
uncontrollable flash.
It's hard to imagine the extent of explosive popular rage that would
result if the shoe were on the other foot, if U.S. people were subject
to aerial bombing, night raids, destruction of civilian homes,
displacement and starvation. In reality, the live wires of hunger and
anger could exist in our lives too; we could be angry, very angry,
about this war, angry enough to make it a political issue. But if our
hunger were for an end to the war, if our hunger even signaled a
desire to rethink and repent our murderous policies, if we honestly
sought forgiveness from Afghan civilians who've borne the brunt of our
war of choice, then perhaps an uncontrollable and incandescent flash
of fairness and peace could govern our future.
This also reminds me that we are the rich man, Afghans are Lazarus. Lazarus went to the bosom of Abraham and the rich man went to the fires of hell.
Hunger and Anger in Afghanistan
by Kathy Kelly
The Obama administration has announced the imminent release of a
December Review which will evaluate the U.S. troop presence in
Afghanistan. The military has yet to disclose what the specific
categories for evaluation will be. Yet many people in Afghanistan
might wish that hunger along with their anger over attacks against
civilians could top the list.
In Afghanistan, a nation where 850 children die every day, about a
quarter of the population goes hungry. The UN says that 7.4 million
Afghans live with hunger and fear of starvation, while millions more
rely on food help, and one in five children die before the age of
five.
"Do you think we like to live this way?" an Afghan man asked me, last
October, as he led us toward a primitive tent encampment on the
outskirts of Kabul. "Do you see how we live? The cold and the rain are
coming. How will we protect our children?" He flicked his forefinger
on a weather-beaten blanket covering a tent. The blanket immediately
ripped.
Standing next to him was a man who quietly handed me three crumpled
photos, never lifting his eyes from the ground. The spokesperson
identified the man as his cousin. The first picture showed his
cousin's ruined home. A U.S. aerial bombardment had destroyed the
dwelling. The next pictures were of two bloodied children. "All of his
children were killed," the spokesperson said. "All his family, his
wife, his five children, by an attack from the air." He went on to
explain that they had been goat herders in the San Gin province of
Afghanistan. They were happy with their lives, selling yoghurt and
fattening their animals. A Taliban fighter had come to their village
at night. The U.S. apparently wanted to kill this fighter, but instead
they destroyed his cousin's family. "We couldn't stay there," the
spokesperson said, pointing to a picture of the debris that was once
his cousin's home. "We were afraid we might be hit again, so all of us
left. We are four families."
Inside one of the tents, a young mother welcomed me to sit down on the
only available cushion. It appeared that they slept on the ground. The
families share one pot over a fire pit, and a few utensils. They also
have access to a water pump. Near their area is a tent where they join
for prayers, and also one that is used for classes. One man begged us
to tell the authorities that they have no medicines in the camp and
that many of the children are ill.
Days earlier, in far more comfortable setting, students at the Bamiyan
University, located in the central, mountainous province of Bamiyan,
had prodded us to comprehend their anger. In a straw poll, several
dozen were unanimous in stating that they want the U.S. to leave their
country. Several insisted that most U.S. people don't understand or
care about the impact of U.S. warfare in Afghanistan. An engineering
student held up a copy of the Time Magazine cover which showed a young
Afghan woman whose nose was horribly mutilated, allegedly as
punishment for defying men in her family. Time Magazine's accompanying
headline announced that the story would explain why U.S. troops must
remain in Afghanistan. "Do Americans care more about noses than
fingers?" the student asked. "Who will cover the stories about fingers
that are cut off?!" I felt embarrassed not to know what he was talking
about. Several weeks later, I read a New York Times article about a
trial taking place at an army base in Washington State. The article
shed light on the student's question. A U.S. Staff Sergeant from the
5th Stryker Combat Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division was charged with
leading a conspiracy to randomly target and kill unarmed Afghan
civilians. He and four other soldiers faced murder charges. The staff
sergeant is alleged to have planted evidence to cover up the murders
and to have carved fingers off corpses which he kept as war souvenirs.
Although the U.S. military forbids soldiers to mutilate corpses and go
on killing sprees that target civilians, the U.S. occupying forces in
Afghanistan have bragged, in recent weeks, about increased capacities
to kill with ever more invulnerable weapons. A company of 16 Abrams
tanks was recently delivered to Afghanistan. "We've taken the gloves
off," said an unnamed U.S. military official, "and it has had huge
impact." (Washington Post, November 19, 2010) The 68 ton tanks fire
high explosive, white phosphorus and anti-personnel shells that can
destroy a house a mile away. Each tank costs 4.3 million dollars and
uses 3 gallons of jet fuel per mile.
The Pentagon is also sending 12,500 XM25 Individual Air Burst Weapons
to Afghanistan, one to each infantry squad and Special Forces team in
Afghanistan. The XM25 gun can fire a projectile that will travel the
length of eight football fields. "When fired, the projectile is
designed to explode directly above a target," says the Army Times,
"raining shrapnel down on an enemy crouched behind cover."
In a report to the November 2010 NATO conference held in Lisbon, 29
aid groups working in Afghanistan warned that the increases in air
attacks, the use of night raids, and the destruction of civilian
property contributes to "rapidly deteriorating" security for most
Afghans and a rise in civilian casualties. People who flee from U.S.
attacks face food insecurity, loss of income, lack of health care, and
homelessness. The aid groups' report is entitled "Nowhere to Turn."
Increasingly, Afghans living in war zones have nowhere to hide.
Commenting on impoverishment and displacement caused by military
offensives, a Pakistani op-ed recently compared hunger and anger to
two live wires. When the wires touch, they create an incandescent and
uncontrollable flash.
It's hard to imagine the extent of explosive popular rage that would
result if the shoe were on the other foot, if U.S. people were subject
to aerial bombing, night raids, destruction of civilian homes,
displacement and starvation. In reality, the live wires of hunger and
anger could exist in our lives too; we could be angry, very angry,
about this war, angry enough to make it a political issue. But if our
hunger were for an end to the war, if our hunger even signaled a
desire to rethink and repent our murderous policies, if we honestly
sought forgiveness from Afghan civilians who've borne the brunt of our
war of choice, then perhaps an uncontrollable and incandescent flash
of fairness and peace could govern our future.
Wikileaks...
Years ago, Wendell Berry wrote in response to the Bush Doctrine:
As a policy, this new strategy depends on the acquiescence of a public kept fearful and ignorant, subject to manipulation by the executive power, and on the compliance of an intimidated and office dependent legislature. To the extent that a government is secret, it cannot be democratic or its people free.
Following the leaks, a State Department official warned certain persons not to discuss these documents online, or it would jeopardize their job prospects, seeing as that shows their lack of respect toward classified documents, "which is part of most positions in the US government."
As a policy, this new strategy depends on the acquiescence of a public kept fearful and ignorant, subject to manipulation by the executive power, and on the compliance of an intimidated and office dependent legislature. To the extent that a government is secret, it cannot be democratic or its people free.
Following the leaks, a State Department official warned certain persons not to discuss these documents online, or it would jeopardize their job prospects, seeing as that shows their lack of respect toward classified documents, "which is part of most positions in the US government."
An Edifying Debate: Is It Ethical to Be Catholic: Queer Perspectives
In the last few years I have been reading some Rene Girard, which led me to the British theologian James Alison. Alison, a Girardian, Catholic, and gay, makes for an intriguing vortex of thought. I certainly appreciated his On Being Liked.
In analyzing his thought, I came across a lecture/debate series held at the University of San Fransisco, titled, "Is it Ethical to Be Catholic: Queer Perspectives." You need to devote about an hour and a half to watching its 15 video segments on youtube.
While some would prefer the conversation be held around the question, "is it ethical to be queer," I find this conversation to be particularly provocative when also analogously applied to Protestants who have considered ecumenical engagement with the Catholic Church: how is one to think about or participate in a Church against which one holds apparent disagreements--be they in the interpretation of nature/biology/sexuality or in papacy/structural/hierarchical questions?
The conversation gets especially interesting not just when the second interlocutor disagrees staunchly with Alison but when Alison interprets a significant shift in the reading of biology/sex/love in pope Benedict's encyclical Deus Est Caritas. Alison sees "Papa-Ratzi" calling an end to the Paul VI styled anthropology (Humane Vitae) which inherently links unitive sex with procreation, and instead takes a descriptive (not prescriptive!) reading of Genesis. Benedict even goes to bring Plato's Symposium into the interpretation of Genesis. In general, Benedict is thereby beginning to allow discourse of "normative, healthy sexuality" into the realm of the sciences and not simply scriptural interpretation.
In analyzing his thought, I came across a lecture/debate series held at the University of San Fransisco, titled, "Is it Ethical to Be Catholic: Queer Perspectives." You need to devote about an hour and a half to watching its 15 video segments on youtube.
While some would prefer the conversation be held around the question, "is it ethical to be queer," I find this conversation to be particularly provocative when also analogously applied to Protestants who have considered ecumenical engagement with the Catholic Church: how is one to think about or participate in a Church against which one holds apparent disagreements--be they in the interpretation of nature/biology/sexuality or in papacy/structural/hierarchical questions?
The conversation gets especially interesting not just when the second interlocutor disagrees staunchly with Alison but when Alison interprets a significant shift in the reading of biology/sex/love in pope Benedict's encyclical Deus Est Caritas. Alison sees "Papa-Ratzi" calling an end to the Paul VI styled anthropology (Humane Vitae) which inherently links unitive sex with procreation, and instead takes a descriptive (not prescriptive!) reading of Genesis. Benedict even goes to bring Plato's Symposium into the interpretation of Genesis. In general, Benedict is thereby beginning to allow discourse of "normative, healthy sexuality" into the realm of the sciences and not simply scriptural interpretation.
The Cost of War and Sanity
From my parish's bulletin this week:
“The Military spends $1.9 million every minute. The Center for Defense Information notes that the 2008 official budget for military spending was drastically understated and that the real figure was over 900 billion dollars when all war expenses were included. Rounded off, what that means is that this nation, which cannot decide if basic health care is a human right, if we should provide the unemployed with extended benefits, and if supporting legislation to provide food for hungry children is a waste of money, is spending: 77 billion dollars a month - 19 billion dollars a week - Over 2 1⁄2 billion dollars a day - Over 100 million dollars an hour - Almost 2 million dollars a minute - over 31 thousand dollars a second.”
“The Military spends $1.9 million every minute. The Center for Defense Information notes that the 2008 official budget for military spending was drastically understated and that the real figure was over 900 billion dollars when all war expenses were included. Rounded off, what that means is that this nation, which cannot decide if basic health care is a human right, if we should provide the unemployed with extended benefits, and if supporting legislation to provide food for hungry children is a waste of money, is spending: 77 billion dollars a month - 19 billion dollars a week - Over 2 1⁄2 billion dollars a day - Over 100 million dollars an hour - Almost 2 million dollars a minute - over 31 thousand dollars a second.”
A Helpful Addition to the Priest Paedophilia Scandal
I, like most people, am desperately saddened by any report of the abuse of children. I have no interest in letting such people "off the hook" but hope to see prudent justice executed--while I am also inclined to treat any person with a loving, merciful grace they don't deserve, as I hope to be treated. (That is another complex matter.)
Whatever one's take on sin and grace, I find this article to be a helpful voice in the discussion about Catholic priest abuse. Getting the stats right is particularly interesting:
-All sectors of civilization, some certainly more than others, have some rate of child abuse, averaging, appallingly, around 10-20% of men (as abusers). The rate among priests is at 4%.
So why despise an organization which is lower than half the average rate of abuse?
Simple: they know better, and they can do better. When the world acts too worldly, it is sadly to be expected. But when the Church acts too worldly, the world gasps and says it must get on acting as it should. This appears to me what the Catholic Church's critics are indirectly affirming.
The especially vitriolic voices who hope this scandal will serve as a fatal dynamiting in the Church's demolition are actually hoping the Church will be more Churchy. I am not only referring the Church's teachings in Mark 9:42, Matt 18:6 (et al) where any abuse of children is regarded with violent hatred by Jesus, but also to its structure and hierarchy. The avowed opponents of the harshness of excommunication and the dogmatic evils are coming out of the woodwork calling for millstones around the necks around pedophiles. While I do not wish to detract from the fervor from their millstone-mobs, I do wonder if they know that they want the Church to exercise its authority.
Why not call for the banning of marriage or life-partnership, as it boasts a large correlation with abuse? Why not despise the Protestant pastors or rabbis or, for that matter, other groups that show higher rates of abuse than priests? The other institutions or groups which are home to abusers do not maintain much of an organizational structure (at least compared to the Catholic Church) and therefore, I assume, we think there is no leverage to critique an "abuse of authority" therein. How, for example, could there ever be such a thing as a "Baptist cover-up," as its pastors are not subject to much of an organized structure?
I have never been under the assumption that the Church is anything but a "whore," in St. Augustine's words. That's why its members quickly clarified that its sacraments are meaningful apart from the quality of the priest dispensing them. Having joined the Church in the midst of its scandal, five years ago, I am under no false pretenses; but I am convinced that anything true the Church's critics have said is a drawing upon the Church's own tradition and teaching, which I am quite clear on: they defend the widow, orphan, the defenseless while denouncing (even more loudly than its critics) the usurer, the extortionist, the murderer, the abuser, the lier, and so on. But, taking the truth even deeper, it has also acknowledged that these sins are in all of us to some extent, beckoning from us a call to mingle our justice with mercy.
Post-note:
In Chesterton's assessment, whatever has not been inspired by Christian tradition in the West (which is nearly everything) has been mostly inspired by Greek pagan philosophy. While it has tickled some "new-agers" and others to revel in paganism as a better alternative to Catholic dreariness, I would hope they know that it took Christianity to regard padeophilia as a sin. Have we not read The Symposium or any other Greek work where child molestation is regarded as a matter of course?
I leave you with a quote from his Heretics:
There is only one thing in the modern world that has been face to face with Paganism; there is only one thing in the modern world which in that sense knows anything about Paganism: and that is Christianity. That fact is really the weak point in the whole of that hedonistic neo-Paganism of which I have spoken.
All that genuinely remains of the ancient hymns or the ancient dances of Europe, all that has honestly come to us from the festivals of Phoebus or Pan, is to be found in the festivals of the Christian Church. If any one wants to hold the end of a chain which really goes back to the heathen mysteries, he had better take hold of a festoon of flowers at Easter or a string of sausages at Christmas.
Everything else in the modern world is of Christian origin, even everything that seems most anti-Christian. The French Revolution is of Christian origin. The newspaper is of Christian origin. The anarchists are of Christian origin. Physical science is of Christian origin. The attack on Christianity is of Christian origin. There is one thing, and one thing only, in existence at the present day which can in any sense accurately be said to be of pagan origin, and that is Christianity.
The real difference between Paganism and Christianity is perfectly summed up in the difference between the pagan, or natural, virtues, and those three virtues of Christianity which the Church of Rome calls virtues of grace. The pagan, or rational, virtues are such things as justice and temperance, and Christianity has adopted them. The three mystical virtues which Christianity has not adopted, but invented, are faith, hope, and charity. Now much easy and foolish Christian rhetoric could easily be poured out upon those three words, but I desire to confine myself to the two facts which are evident about them. The first evident fact (in marked contrast to the delusion of the dancing pagan)—the first evident fact, I say, is that the pagan virtues, such as justice and temperance, are the sad virtues, and that the mystical virtues of faith, hope, and charity are the gay and exuberant virtues. And the second evident fact, which is even more evident, is the fact that the pagan virtues are the reasonable virtues, and that the Christian virtues of faith, hope, and charity are in their essence as unreasonable as they can be.
Whatever one's take on sin and grace, I find this article to be a helpful voice in the discussion about Catholic priest abuse. Getting the stats right is particularly interesting:
-All sectors of civilization, some certainly more than others, have some rate of child abuse, averaging, appallingly, around 10-20% of men (as abusers). The rate among priests is at 4%.
So why despise an organization which is lower than half the average rate of abuse?
Simple: they know better, and they can do better. When the world acts too worldly, it is sadly to be expected. But when the Church acts too worldly, the world gasps and says it must get on acting as it should. This appears to me what the Catholic Church's critics are indirectly affirming.
The especially vitriolic voices who hope this scandal will serve as a fatal dynamiting in the Church's demolition are actually hoping the Church will be more Churchy. I am not only referring the Church's teachings in Mark 9:42, Matt 18:6 (et al) where any abuse of children is regarded with violent hatred by Jesus, but also to its structure and hierarchy. The avowed opponents of the harshness of excommunication and the dogmatic evils are coming out of the woodwork calling for millstones around the necks around pedophiles. While I do not wish to detract from the fervor from their millstone-mobs, I do wonder if they know that they want the Church to exercise its authority.
Why not call for the banning of marriage or life-partnership, as it boasts a large correlation with abuse? Why not despise the Protestant pastors or rabbis or, for that matter, other groups that show higher rates of abuse than priests? The other institutions or groups which are home to abusers do not maintain much of an organizational structure (at least compared to the Catholic Church) and therefore, I assume, we think there is no leverage to critique an "abuse of authority" therein. How, for example, could there ever be such a thing as a "Baptist cover-up," as its pastors are not subject to much of an organized structure?
I have never been under the assumption that the Church is anything but a "whore," in St. Augustine's words. That's why its members quickly clarified that its sacraments are meaningful apart from the quality of the priest dispensing them. Having joined the Church in the midst of its scandal, five years ago, I am under no false pretenses; but I am convinced that anything true the Church's critics have said is a drawing upon the Church's own tradition and teaching, which I am quite clear on: they defend the widow, orphan, the defenseless while denouncing (even more loudly than its critics) the usurer, the extortionist, the murderer, the abuser, the lier, and so on. But, taking the truth even deeper, it has also acknowledged that these sins are in all of us to some extent, beckoning from us a call to mingle our justice with mercy.
Post-note:
In Chesterton's assessment, whatever has not been inspired by Christian tradition in the West (which is nearly everything) has been mostly inspired by Greek pagan philosophy. While it has tickled some "new-agers" and others to revel in paganism as a better alternative to Catholic dreariness, I would hope they know that it took Christianity to regard padeophilia as a sin. Have we not read The Symposium or any other Greek work where child molestation is regarded as a matter of course?
I leave you with a quote from his Heretics:
There is only one thing in the modern world that has been face to face with Paganism; there is only one thing in the modern world which in that sense knows anything about Paganism: and that is Christianity. That fact is really the weak point in the whole of that hedonistic neo-Paganism of which I have spoken.
All that genuinely remains of the ancient hymns or the ancient dances of Europe, all that has honestly come to us from the festivals of Phoebus or Pan, is to be found in the festivals of the Christian Church. If any one wants to hold the end of a chain which really goes back to the heathen mysteries, he had better take hold of a festoon of flowers at Easter or a string of sausages at Christmas.
Everything else in the modern world is of Christian origin, even everything that seems most anti-Christian. The French Revolution is of Christian origin. The newspaper is of Christian origin. The anarchists are of Christian origin. Physical science is of Christian origin. The attack on Christianity is of Christian origin. There is one thing, and one thing only, in existence at the present day which can in any sense accurately be said to be of pagan origin, and that is Christianity.
The real difference between Paganism and Christianity is perfectly summed up in the difference between the pagan, or natural, virtues, and those three virtues of Christianity which the Church of Rome calls virtues of grace. The pagan, or rational, virtues are such things as justice and temperance, and Christianity has adopted them. The three mystical virtues which Christianity has not adopted, but invented, are faith, hope, and charity. Now much easy and foolish Christian rhetoric could easily be poured out upon those three words, but I desire to confine myself to the two facts which are evident about them. The first evident fact (in marked contrast to the delusion of the dancing pagan)—the first evident fact, I say, is that the pagan virtues, such as justice and temperance, are the sad virtues, and that the mystical virtues of faith, hope, and charity are the gay and exuberant virtues. And the second evident fact, which is even more evident, is the fact that the pagan virtues are the reasonable virtues, and that the Christian virtues of faith, hope, and charity are in their essence as unreasonable as they can be.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)