1

Maybe I'm asking for it, but...

I really don't want to get into another of those debates over the Catholic Faith. But I'd like to offer a suggestion to those with whom the charge, "Catholics worship Mary," resonates.

Here's my suggestion. Before you accept that proposition, it would be well to examine closely just what "worship" means for Catholics. It should clear to most reasoning people that you can't answer this question -- "Do they worship Mary?" without asking my question: "what does worship mean for them?" And yet, and yet--that is precisely what happens. An understanding of worship extraneous to Catholics (and Orthodox, I think I'm safe in saying) is premised to make the point.

Because I'll just say this: if you assume a, let us call it, "Evangelical" or "Reformed" sense of what "worship" is, the question: "Do Catholics worship Mary?" is reasonable. And a "yes" can easily be supported.

HOWEVER: when you bring a *Catholic* understanding of "worship" to the question, "Do Catholics worship Mary?" then the question explodes on its own from the absurdity.

(Now, whoever wants to can pick my bones clean, rhetorically, from this point, about the "Catholics-right-or-wrong" question, because I'm not responding on those lines. It's tiresome and it misses the point I'm offering, which is, right or wrong, Catholicism isn't what many of its critics think it is, and they don't bother to find out. Exhibit A: Catholic understanding of "worship" is very different from Evangelicals and other Protestants' understanding.)

Well, if I have anyone curious, then I will point you in the right direction. For Catholics, worship is centered in the Mass, which is called a Sacrifice, it is called Eucharist, it is understood to be a participation in the Divine, particularly through the sharing (communion) of the very Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus.

Again, we all know: Protestants don't believe this, and/or they see reasons why the Catholics err in all this. Even so: this *is* what Catholics understand to be worship.

Say what you like about Catholic teaching: it isn't wishy-washy about the importance of the Mass, the reality of Jesus in the Eucharist (we get down on our knees and ADORE the Eucharist--that's how serious we are about this), and the supernatural reality of sacraments, especially the Mass.

Say, "I don't understand it"; say, "I don't believe it"; say, "they got it wrong" -- all fair enough; but for heaven's sake, do not say "its not there" or "they aren't serious" -- because that would be utterly absurd . . . and truly dishonest.

Now, many may not have time or inclination to do what it takes to appreciate the Catholic mindset about all this . . .

(And understand, this isn't a matter of accepting a proposition or two, it's a whole way of seeing things -- and while that may make it harder for the outsider to "get it," isn't that what should be true, if Catholicism is true? So it really isn't a knock against Catholics that "it's so much work to 'get' what they're about.")

. . . anyway, I started to say: it may be too much trouble to penetrate, and grasp, a Catholic understanding of worship. Fair enough. But that's when a reasonable person draws up and stops. "I don't get where they're coming from..." and stops there.

For one, a reasonably sensible person does not offer conclusions on subjects s/he acknowledges s/he doesn't really understand.

Second, because plenty of people -- lifelong Catholics, Protestants-become-Catholics, Protestants and Orthodox and others never-become Catholics, will tell you what I've told you. That you "can't get it" doesn't mean the point "can't be got" -- so will you say all those who do get the point -- the crucial difference I'm telling you is there -- are we all liars?

And that's why so much of the arguing among Chrisitians is so tiresome: because it doesn't stop to do that initial spade-work: before I disagree with what you say, oughtn't I to discover just what you really mean, when you say it?

2

A classic nonsequitur. Everyone has views. Everyone wants their views represented. Whether they are religious in nature doesn't matter, that is, except to the left.

3

I'm sorry, but anyone that says Catholics worship Mary is just plain stupid. We do have the tradition of intercession. Thats where your disagreement lies, not with any veneration of Mary. Besides, she's a cool chick.

4

Patrick,

I'm sorry, but anyone that says Catholics worship Mary is just plain stupid.

Are you saying that Septimus (who happens to be a Catholic priest) is stupid?

5

people advance their moral viewpoints in the public square, they are not imposing anything on anyone. They are proposing. That’s what citizens do in a democracy—we propose, we give reasons, we vote. It’s a very strange doctrine that would silence only religiously grounded moral viewpoints.

None of this is relevant to the debate over "imposing one's views". It seems to be a deliberate semantic and conceptual equivocation.

As for "proposing", no one has ever claimed that religious believers shouldn't express themselves freely. They have claimed that others cannot be forced to participate or even to listen, and thus have objected to official government imposition of and endorsement of religious expression in schools, school activities, and other public venues, but that's not a restriction on the right of expression itself, just on the right to force others to submit to that expression.

The real objection is to using the political structure to force others to live by the values or beliefs of another group, with no compelling justification other than that that group wants to force them to do so. That is "imposition" of beliefs, and that is what is objected to. What civil libertarians have advocated is that laws should have some rational justification other than mere majority will, and especially when that will is an idiosyncratic religious belief of one group that the other group does not share. If religious freedom means anything, it must include the freedom not to live by the dictates of someone else's religion - and that right holds good for the minority as well as for the majority. So laws cannot - in keeping with religious freedom and personal autonomy - be based only on religious beliefs, even if those beliefs are held by a majority, or even an overwhelming majority, of the population. Laws are obviously necessary, but they must be based on social need rationally interpreted, or they are indeed an imposition of the religious beliefs of one group upon another.

This is, to be sure, a constraint upon the freedom of the dominant group: specifically, upon their freedom to impose their beliefs upon others against the others' will without rational justification. Recognizing and enforcing that constraint is, more or less, the definition of civilization.

As for "silencing only religiously grounded moral viewpoints", please. Stop the delusional, self-congratulatory whining. We're drowning in religiously grounded moral viewpoints and always have been. No serious constraints on religious expression have ever been imposed as a general policy, and the rare infractions by overzealous administrators are hardly the universal martyrdom Christians love to complain of. You can say anything you want. You just can't threaten people with jail, fines, public silencing, classroom ridicule, public harassment, poisoning, anthrax and bomb threats, firebombings, explosives, death threats, and murder for not living the way you say they should.

No one prevents Christians saying what they like, no matter how offensive. It's the fact that you turn violent when we ignore you that's the problem.

6

Should I make this point later, after things get worked up; or make it now?

I'll make it now...

To say, "Catholics worship Mary" can be defended on purely semantic grounds: i.e., if you assume a Protestant/Evangelical -- and therefore NOT-CATHOLIC -- understanding of what "worship" means in that statement.

But that requires you to impute an intention to Catholics that we certainly do not have; and to assume what is manifestly false: that Catholics understand "worship" essentially as Protestants and Evangelicals do.

To fail to attend to this very fundamental question of meaning and intent -- to simply sidestep it -- is, I think, very arrogant, very ignorant, and/or, very dishonest. Take your pick.

One can argue, certainly, that the Protestant/Evangelical understanding of worship is the correct one, and the Catholics are all goofed up on this -- and that would be far more fruitful than, "you worship her!" "no we don't! "yes you DO!" which is the usual tiresome stuff.

But even there, will critics of Catholic belief and practice assign NO value to ones intentions and self-understanding?

I'm not saying it's the sole value--but it has some, does it not?

Because if you really believe the intention and understanding one brings to prayer is irrelevant . . . now that is an interesting question: I'd like to see an intelligent defense of that proposition by an Evangelical.

7

Septimus,

Maybe I misunderstood what Patrick was saying. I assumed that he was saying that you were in error while he might have meant that critics of Catholocism are simply confused on the point.

I do think I understand what you are getting at. Catholics have a nuanced view of "worship" with different levels of veneration (i.e., latria, hyperdulia, dulia) while evangelicals tend to use the word in reference to God alone. While we may disagree on what type or degree of veneration that is due to Mary, our differences are not based on a doctrine that "Catholics think that Mary is a co-equal with the Trinity." Is that a fair summation?

8

To Septimus and Patrick (who called me stupid):

I know well that RC's do not worship Mary from an official doctrinal stance, although veneration is called for not only by church doctrine but by Scripture (and we Protestants have been woefully derelict in properly honoring her). But my statements are from direct experience in several nations.

From 1969-1983 I worked with a contemporary group of "musicianaries" called Living Sound. Through no avenue but God's grace we became a favorite of Poland's two cardinals, including the younger, Karol Wojtyla. His Holiness not only invited us to Rome in 1980, but also opened RC churches to us all over the world. I have sung and preached in Roman Catholic churches from California to Czestochowa, all over Poland, Spain, and several other nations.

My remarks were from personal experience. It is a fact that millions of RC's, particularly those in whose cultures father-figures are seen as austere, go well beyond veneration, beyond intercession of the saints, and view Mary as co-Redemptrix. There is, in fact, a movement (with no small involvement from Mother Angelica, the "tv nun") to have her declared co-Mediatrix and co-Redemptrix.

I rejoice in having been the special guest of a Cardinal (at Sacrosong), and in having had such freedom in ministry amongst thousands of Roman Catholics, whom I fully recognize as my brothers and sisters in Christ Jesus. But I also recognize the reality of this error, which was in fact a minor citation in a larger series of posts about the grave errors of my own Charismatic world.

Father Septimus, I ask your forgiveness and forbearance. Patrick, I suggest you extend some of the grace you're always demanding from straight Christians. Perhaps reigning in your shoot-from-the-lip tendencies would go a long way towards earning you greater respect in this comment forum.

9

Jim:

I don't dispute your experience; but in all respect, you have simply side-stepped the point I attempted to make in my first post.

What Catholics understand, in all senses, to be "worship," they certainly, unequivocally do not give to Mary.

You may think we overdo it, and you could be right; that's one question.

But I say again, you are sidestepping the point I made: to say "Catholics worship Mary" -- and if you use a Catholic understanding of "worship" when you say that -- is utterly nonsense.

And if you don't understand that, you are making my point for me: that you are bringing with you your non-Catholic sense of what "worship" is, and disregarding what Catholics understand it be.

And of course you're entitled to believe what you like; but please, don't say we believe, what we do not, and keep going to such lengths to tell you, we do not. Don't impute your understanding of worship to Catholics. I don't see how you can be entitled to do that.

I say all that assuming you mean well. I'm just trying to clarify the point I originally made.

10

Joe:

I'll let Patrick speak for himself.

As to your summary of what I said, yeah, that's fair.

Maybe I'm not clear enough, so let me say this:

Catholics have an understanding of "worship" that is of an altogether different order above and beyond what -- as we see it -- Protestants call worship. And I say that because we're all about Sacrifice -- the Mass -- and the Eucharist.

Through Protestant/Evangelical eyes, it may be really hard to see how there's such a difference. "We have communion, too! We celebrate the Eucharist!" Yes; but not as a Sacrifice; not with the bread and wine really becoming Jesus, such that we kneel and adore the Eucharist, and were Evangelicals to do that, I think that would be idolatry, unless I misunderstand Evangelical beliefs about what the Eucharist *is.*

We believe Calvary -- the Cross -- is as really present, in the Mass, as Jesus is really present in the Eucharist. And THAT -- that incredible reality (and Protestants don't "cred" it) is "worship."

Find me a any set of Catholics that offers Mass, not in and through JESUS, all-centered on the infinite merits of his sacrifice and salvation, but rather, offers Mass in-and-through Mary . . .

Then we'll talk about confusion, on Catholics' part, about worshipping Mary.

We're *very* clear about what is worship, and what is merely prayer and honor and a close relationship.

Does that help?

11

But I say again, you are sidestepping the point I made: to say "Catholics worship Mary" -- and if you use a Catholic understanding of "worship" when you say that -- is utterly nonsense.

Thanks Septimus. I truly do understand, probably more than your average Protestant bear, but certainly lacked nuance. Thankfully I was never as outspoken in cathedrals as I am in my own blog.

You are more gracious than you might have been, and I am grateful. And Joe, you always build good bridges.

12

Joe,

My own claim that "truth need not be argued" prohibits me from taking issue with you. ;->

13

Jim:

This is pretty much self-serving, but . . . well . . . there it is . . .

You're welcome at my blog anytime (clicking my name ought to do it).

14

"I assumed that he was saying that you were in error while he might have meant that critics of Catholicism are simply confused on the point."

I think a lot of the criticisms that I've heard over the years toward Catholicism from Protestants and others are certainly stupid. And I don't even consider myself Catholic anymore. So I feel no particular need to defend the Mother Church. Catholics honor Mary, but they don't worship her as God, which is what I hear most of the time from Protestant lips. That and "worshiping idols". Give me a break.

I'm not a theologian, but it seems to me to be a difference about whether others besides God can hear our prayers and act on them. Such as the Saints or Mary. I think that is the real point of contention. Probably has something to do with that "buying absolution" thing that some people got so worked up about a few centuries ago.

15

Dam good posting.I read some of you're articles and they are really nice.
I enjoyed reading them.
Harry

16

Keith:

I think the problem here is this - much legislation is moral/ethical in nature. I think we have a classic black/white/grey problem with legislation.

Some legislation may be clearly based on an ethic of not harming others - hence, do not kill, do not steal, do not lie. Even though these are all religious commandments, in civil govt discourse, we may consider them on their ethicality alone.

On the opposite extreme are religious morals that are purely religious, and probably should not be legislated - keep the sabbath, don't eat pork, whatever.

But there is a gray zone where we have difficulty. Is adultery wrong because the bible says so? Does it really harm people? Maybe it harms the person who needs an extrimarital affair to criminalize their adultery. That may sound crazy, but proponents of open, group, and polygamous marriage argue that. Does homosexuality harm people? How about teaching our children that homosexuality is ok? What about sexual exploration among teens? What about teens sexually experimenting with adults?

In the gray zone, you are going to have to do two things. One, you may have to develop a more complex ethic, but it probably won't be convincing. The other is you can fall back on traditional (time-tested, in many cases) morality. We will always have public arguments about legislating in the moral gray zone.

But I think that we must (1) preach morality first, rather than merely legislate, (2) educate minds about immorality and its cost, and finally, (3) legislate to a point, and allow people some freedom.

For example, homosexuality. Now, I believe it is sinful and a maladaptation. But I don't want to criminalize it. However, because it is a gray zone, I don't want to legitimize it either via legislation like allowing gays to be officially married. They can be gay, but they can't foist their view on the rest of us by having it legitimized and taught to children if there is a chance that they are wrong and I am right. And we will never really know, so we might as well live with the compromise rather than endlessly going back and forth on it.

17

The Religious Right Lie:
American Is Not Only a Christian Nation

Dear Fellow Americans:

Please wake up and see the light, our Country is being stolen from us right from under our noses. Most people throughout this Nation love freedom. We don't like the idea of anyone telling us what we can and cannot do. The religious right in this country, lead by the Christian Coalition & The Family Research Council, is in the process of achieving the power to do just that. It is sad to see so many of our untrustworthy governmental and religious leaders, wanting to take the people of this country and ultimately the world; back down history’s distorted path. One would think and realize that the religious right is eagerly willing to take everyone down that same path again. Will we as humans ever break this never-ending cycle of self-destruction?

The religious right and the Bush Administration is working diligently to change our secular government to a religious based government. They are currently have pressured Congress to pass legislation that will do away with the bankruptcy protection of their own members (what ever happened to "Christian Charity")! They are pushing for the passage of a bill called the Religious Liberty and Charitable Donation Protection Act sponsored by California Representative Ron Packard. They want to take away our freedoms - such as our first amendment rights, pro choice rights, repeal abortion, restrict family planning, the list goes on.

The right wants to replace our current laws with biblical laws, they want to brainwash our children and while they tell lies about birth control and sex,

President Bush has the most secretive and diabolical administration this country has ever seen. Bush calls himself religious? A global gag rule, which is killing millions of women, circumventing congress and giving money to religious organizations, getting laws past that protect corporations, bringing this country into an illegal war with more than 25,000 civilian deaths alone. Bush has no problem repealing passed laws that were passed to protect the environment. The list goes on for BushCo. Also, what is wrong with this picture?

A key element in the power of the religious right over the minds of their followers is the false idea they constantly promote regarding the origins of America. They claim America was founded as a Christian nation. This false idea makes many people feel they are un-American or unpatriotic if they question Christianity. Pat Robertson said “It is certainly true that the precepts of faith are interwoven throughout the founding documents of this nation. The forms of our constitutional government - as implemented by Jefferson, Madison, Franklin, Washington, Adams, and others - were carefully designed to acknowledge the authority of the Scriptures and our dependence upon the Creator." This is an outright lie.

None of the five founding fathers mentioned above by Robertson were Christians. John Adams was Unitarian. George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and Benjamin Franklin were all Deists, not Christians. That is, they believed in God or a Creator based on nature and reason, but rejected revealed religions like Christianity as well as the "Holy Books" of the various revealed religions such as the Bible, the Koran, and the Torah.

The Treaty of Tripoli. The above quote is taken from article XI of that treaty. If Washington was a devout Christian, and if America was founded as a Christian nation, would he and the other founders of our nation ever approved such language in an official binding U.S. document?

Thomas Paine wrote "The study of theology, as it stands in Christian churches, is the study of nothing; it is founded on nothing; it rests on no principles; it proceeds by no authorities; it has no data; it can demonstrate nothing; and it admits of no conclusion. Not any thing can be studied as a science, without our being in possession of the principles upon which it is founded; and as this is not the case with Christian theology, it is therefore the study of nothing. "That doesn't sound like a Christian to me.

When Pat Robertson writes that, "the precepts of faith are interwoven throughout the founding documents of this nation," he is just as demonstrably wrong as when he states America's key founders were Christians.

As you are reading this, the religious right is fighting and working to make sure they will have the final say over what kind of movies you watch, what kind of music you listen to, what kind of books you read, and thereby what kind of thoughts you think. Already they have installed a conservative republican Congress for the first time in decades. Robertson writes, "The simple truth regarding apathy, low voter turn out, and close elections tells us that the combined strength of dedicated Evangelicals coupled with equally dedicated pro-family Roman Catholics and Orthodox Jews is more than sufficient to decide any election for any office in the land." Justice James Leon Holmes, Appointed to Arkansas federal court, July 6, 2004 stated "Woman is subordinate to man. They are well on their way to turning America into a dangerously repressive un-American theocracy. What are you going to do to stop them?

Think about it. Can anything be more un-American? Has the radical Christian fundamentalism become the “state religion? Are we all going to just roll over and let a fanatical right in power as a weapon to take political ground? The systematic extermination of public opinion in the name of religion should give us all, regardless of our faith, reason for grave concern. Or do we just sit back and watch this country regress back to the time of the Inquisition? Not me!!! Wake up Americans.

18

I really enjoyed reading your posts!

19

Very Nice Site.

20

Very interesting blog.

21

Just love your blog!

22

Hello!

23

Nice site.

24

Email me!

25

Excellent blog.

26

Hi There!

27

Thanks.

28

Hi there,

I have been given the task of getting links for our websites that have good page rank on the links directories.
In addition we have many categories so your site will be place on an appropriate page.

If you would like to trade links please send me your website details.

P.S.: I got your e-mail publicly listed on your webpage .
Our apologies if you do not wish to take part in a link exchange.

Best Regards,
Marry Tailor