We are very fortunate here in Ottawa in our Archbishop Terence Prendergast. I respect the guy a lot and regularly read his blog.
That said, I hope he won't mind a little well-meaning criticism. The following is something the Serpentine One spotted in a recent post of his recounting some remarks from an annual benefit dinner that he sponsors:
This is a familiar move we Catholics make in that we assume because we reject the culture of death that makes us a part of a culture of life. But we do not deserve the right to call ourselves a culture of life until we prove it.
As the Serpentine One said to me as she called my attention to it, "This is the kind of thing that makes non-Catholics shake their heads and say, "What!?"
While I'm at it
I might add that there is no evidence that Christ was born in poverty or that he was born in a stable. Luke's Gospel tells us that he was laid in a manger, that is a kind of trough for feeding animals*, rather than a crib. It does not tell us where that manger was. Luke further tells us that Jesus was laid there because there was no room at the inn and not because his parents could not afford to pay. Joesph and Mary were not rich but there is not one line anywhere in the Gospels that indicates that they were poor.
By the way, I've read some scholars who argue that the word translated in "Manger" in Luke is related to the word used to describe the vessel that holds a sacrifice. I have no idea whether that is true as my knowledge of Koine Greek is very sketchy. However, if true, that suggests that Luke's intention may have been to make a symbolic point about the child born rather than to describe his economic status.
That will strike many people who know only recent Catholic tradition as radical but anyone even remotely familiar with the popular piety surrounding Saint Anne (the mother of Mary according to Catholic teaching), for example, will know that centuries of tradition described her as not only not poor but aristocratic. The notion that Jesus was a poor and homeless is not only without supporting evidence, it's largely a late twentieth century fiction.
That said, I hope he won't mind a little well-meaning criticism. The following is something the Serpentine One spotted in a recent post of his recounting some remarks from an annual benefit dinner that he sponsors:
Ignatius was obviously moved by a profound devotion to the Christ Child, born in poverty in a stable, born to a Virgin under stressful circumstances, born, as Ignatius was wont to say “out of love for me” and “for my sins.” But at the same time he was affirming the dignity of every child born or ready to be born into our world.Now it is entirely possible, I suspect that it is even likely, that Ignatius Loyola did see the birth as affirming the dignity of every child born or ready to be born but nothing in that paragraph or in any of the rest of the Archbishop's remarks backs that claim up.
This is a familiar move we Catholics make in that we assume because we reject the culture of death that makes us a part of a culture of life. But we do not deserve the right to call ourselves a culture of life until we prove it.
As the Serpentine One said to me as she called my attention to it, "This is the kind of thing that makes non-Catholics shake their heads and say, "What!?"
While I'm at it
I might add that there is no evidence that Christ was born in poverty or that he was born in a stable. Luke's Gospel tells us that he was laid in a manger, that is a kind of trough for feeding animals*, rather than a crib. It does not tell us where that manger was. Luke further tells us that Jesus was laid there because there was no room at the inn and not because his parents could not afford to pay. Joesph and Mary were not rich but there is not one line anywhere in the Gospels that indicates that they were poor.
By the way, I've read some scholars who argue that the word translated in "Manger" in Luke is related to the word used to describe the vessel that holds a sacrifice. I have no idea whether that is true as my knowledge of Koine Greek is very sketchy. However, if true, that suggests that Luke's intention may have been to make a symbolic point about the child born rather than to describe his economic status.
That will strike many people who know only recent Catholic tradition as radical but anyone even remotely familiar with the popular piety surrounding Saint Anne (the mother of Mary according to Catholic teaching), for example, will know that centuries of tradition described her as not only not poor but aristocratic. The notion that Jesus was a poor and homeless is not only without supporting evidence, it's largely a late twentieth century fiction.
We all know that Biblical scholars believe--based on what I don't know--that Jesus' birth probably occurred sometime in the Spring, not on December 25. The celebration of his birth on the Winter Solstice was an attempt to "Christianize" pagan, in this case Druid, feasts and rituals and thereby attract converts. Look what they started, an entire industry built around Christmas! I also have to laugh whenever I see "artistic" (and I use the term loosely) depictions of the stable with the Holy Family, oxen, sheep, etc. and snow falling--in that part of the world in the Spring?!
ReplyDeleteThe notion that Jesus was poor probably came from an attempt to illustrate his humility and that his Kingdom was not of this world. But I think it goes back farther than the late 20thC., I seem to recall words from Handel's "Messiah"--probably Isaiah--that at least imply that Jesus--or the Messiah that was prophesied--would be poor.
I'm not accusing you of doing this, but I always find it really strange when people say (as if it's a damning revelation) that many of the traditions surrounding Christmas are adaptations of Saturnalia and the Solstice and whatnot. As you say, it's obvious!
ReplyDeleteWell, the Jehovah's Witnesses don't celebrate Christmas for that reason.
ReplyDeleteJust between us, I'm not sure I'd want to take the Jehovah's Witnesses as authority for very much :-) Lots of good people are members of the Witnesses but the basis of that faith stands for very little rational scrutiny. Like Wicca, it's just something somebody made up.
ReplyDeleteTo the best of my knowledge, nobody has a particularly solid line on when Jesus was born. The year and the month are open for discussion.
But I don't think it's particularly damning that it almost corresponds to solstice. Even all the animals and stable stuff (which, as I understand it, is the work of St Francis) strikes me as okay. There are shared ideas of sacredness and that we should celebrate the birth of our Saviour on one of the longest nights of the year with all the child-like magic that goes with it strikes me as wonderful.
plus it works well with the light shining in the darkness.
ReplyDeleteI agree with both of the above comments. Don't misunderstand, I have no problem with the animals and stable, or especially the shepherds. I heard a remarkable sermon on the radio a few years ago given by a local Methodist minister and broadcast on the Catholic radio station in Hartford. Her point was that the Angel announced Jesus' birth not to the established religious leaders, but to humble shepherds who in that time were not only poor but considered the lowest of the low, the outcasts of society. That's not a made up story, its right out of the Gospel. I only find scenes of snow falling in Palestine in the Spring a little humorous! But, as you say, celebrating the birth of the Saviour on one of the longest nights of the year is indeed magical and affirms the light shining in the darkness as well as the overall message of the Gospel, which is Hope.
ReplyDeleteIn any case, what those--like the Jehovah's Witnesses--who would condemn Christmas and Christianity as a whole fail to grasp is that while the celebration might have started out as an adaptation of a pagan ritual and some of the form retained, it has taken on a life of its own with a depth and meaning that are completely disconnected from those pagan origins.