NOTE TO DIOCESAN EDITORS: JESUS IS NOT A MOTHER
"RIGHT-WING EVANGELICALS" TO BLAME FOR SOCIETY'S ILLS
Dear Friend of Catholic Answers:
At Catholic Answers we take holy days seriously--that is, when we can find one that has not been transferred to the nearest Sunday. Last Tuesday was an untranslated holy day, All Saints Day, which meant that our office was closed. Our policy is to take holy days off--a spiritual bonus for a hardworking staff.
Since holy days, like Sundays, are supposed to be days of rest, that was sufficient reason for me to skip an issue of the E-Letter. Yes, I could have prepared an issue in advance, but I was looking for an excuse to play hookey, and a holy day will do.
IT IS NOT ALL RIGHT TO CALL GOD "MOTHER"
Julie McCarty writes a column, "The Prayerful Heart," that is syndicated in diocesan newspapers. A recent column was titled "Is It Permissible to Call God 'Mother'?" It appeared in my diocesan paper and, presumably, in many others. I think this is one column that should have been spiked.
The column started cloyingly:
"The first time I heard someone address a prayer to 'Mother God,' I felt a little startled. My artistic side thought, how creative. My feminine side rejoiced to think that God really, truly understands me. But the good-little-girl inside me was nervous about breaking a rule. Would lightning strike?"
No, and apparently not good sense either.
Whether God should be addressed as "he" or "she" has nothing to do with being "creative" or "feminine" (or "masculine," for that matter), and using "Mother" instead of "Father" to refer to God has nothing to do with keeping or breaking "rules." It is insipid to put the issue in such terms.
McCarty goes on to say that she is "a big fan of the Trinity." That's good to hear. It reminds me of Margaret Fuller, a nineteenth-century New England Transcendentalist, who once announced, "I accept the universe!" When he later heard of her remark, Thomas Carlyle is said to have replied, "Gad, she'd better!" So I'm pleased that McCarty is "a big fan of the Trinity." As a Trinitarian--which is what Christians are--she'd better be a big fan.
She notes that saints and even Scripture talk about God having motherly attributes, but when they say God is "like a mother," they are not saying that he "is a mother." The distinction seems lost on McCarty. There is a reason that the First Person of the Trinity is titled "Father" and not "Mother": While there may be ways in which God is "like a mother," the fact is that he actually is a father, and we are told so by Jesus himself.
McCarty ends her column this way: "Yet, pondering comparisons between loving mothers and God is a good way to expand our spiritual lives. Mother Jesus feeds us Eucharist. The Holy Spirit continually births us into new, transformed life. God longs for us to draw closer in prayer, as close as a baby feeding at the mother's breast."
Actually--I hope it is not too brash to say so--I think that "God longs for us" to stop such prattle. "Mother Jesus"? What is next, "Father Mary"? When language is used this loosely it either carries no real content and consists of just happy-sounding phrases or it conveys downright error. Neither one is good.
As I said, McCarty's column should have been spiked.
THE L.A. TIMES EDITOR SHOULD PAY ATTENTION TOO
In its October 1 issue the "Los Angeles Times" published an op-ed piece by Rosa Brooks. It was titled "The Dark Side of Faith." Its impetus was a study reported in the "Journal of Religion and Society," which is published by Creighton University. The study was by Gregory S. Paul, an evolutionary scientist, who sought a correlation between levels of "popular religiosity" and "quantifiable societal health" indicators in 18 democracies, including the U.S.
According to Brooks, Paul "found that the most religious democracies exhibited substantially higher degrees of social dysfunction than societies with larger percentages of atheists and agnostics. Of the nations studied, the U.S.--which has by far the largest percentage of people who take the Bible literally and express absolute belief in God (and the lowest percentage of atheists and agnostics)--also has by far the highest levels of homicide, abortion, teen pregnancy, and sexually transmitted diseases."
Brooks opines that "this conclusion will come as no surprise to those who have long gnashed their teeth in frustration while listening to right-wing Evangelical claims that secular liberals are weak on 'values.' Paul's study confirms globally what is already evident in the U.S.: When it comes to 'values,' if you look at facts rather than mere rhetoric, the substantially more secular blue states routinely leave the Bible Belt red states in the dust."
She later writes, "Why should we doubt that extremist forms of modern American Christianity have their own pernicious and measurable effects on national health and well-being? Arguably, Paul's study invites us to conclude that the most serious threat humanity faces today is religious extremism: nonrational, absolutist belief systems that refuse to tolerate difference and dissent."
Let me dissent from Brooks' argument, but first let me summarize it. She says, in approving Paul's study, that America "has by far the highest levels of homicide, abortion, teen pregnancy, and sexually transmitted diseases" precisely because there are so many "right-wing Evangelicals" in the country. Hmmm. Let's think about that.
These "right-wing Evangelicals" constantly preach against abortion, teen sex, and the promiscuity that results in sexually transmitted diseases. They also are hardliners on crime. If their preaching is effective at all, it will tend to reduce the incidents of these things, not increase them. That means that "right-wing Evangelicals" are not to blame for the high rates of these maladies. The culprits must be found elsewhere--such as among the atheists and agnostics that Brooks and Paul seem to prefer.
Maybe the U.S. really is the worst off of the 18 democracies surveyed. If so, this just means that it would be worse off still if there were no "right-wing Evangelicals" preaching against these social ills. And that means the high incidence of these ills must have a cause other than the religion of people whom Brooks and Paul don't like.
(By the way, Paul's study lists abortion as A Bad Thing. I wonder if I should ask Brooks what her belief is on abortion. ... Naw, no need to bother. It's too predicable.)
p.s., If you have a comment about anything appearing in this E-Letter, please do not hit your Reply button. Instead, go to Catholic Answers' discussion forums at
http://forums.catholic.com
where you may post your comment in the forum dedicated to the E-Letter. You will find a thread devoted to this issue of the E-Letter. Feel free to add your comment in the form of a reply to that thread.
|
C A T H O L I C A N S W E R S :
[TOP]
of
Discuss
Index
Prior issue
Next issue
Sign up