Last week we looked at what I would call theological twists and turns about human sexuality.

Over the past two thousand years, in fact, Christianity has gone through a number of theological twists and turns. Most have involved a shifting focus on either “orthopraxy” or “orthodoxy.”

In a life-centered Christian theology, the primary focus is orthopraxy which means “correct conduct.” Orthodoxy, on the other hand, means and emphasizes “correct belief.”

Orthopraxy – correct behavior — was certainly fundamental in the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth: being courageous, compassionate, and inspiring in the midst of life’s ups and downs. Jesus certainly experienced life’s ups and downs.

In John’s Gospel, Jesus says: “I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness but will have the light of life.” (John 8:12) In orthopraxy, Christians do not walk in darkness but like the Good Samaritan they live out the Sermon on the Mount by caring for the marginalized, promoting compassion and peace, and sharing God’s love.

While Christianity eventually developed strict creeds, it began however with a strong focus on action and lifestyle—orthopraxy — following the “way” of Jesus

Orthopraxy is what we should be about today. Nevertheless, in Roman Catholic history the focus on an unquestioning acceptance of orthodoxy created an atmosphere of thought control and, quite often, fear for those who dared to question. Growing up as a Catholic teenager, I remember regularly saying the Act of Faith prayer, in which I so fervently prayed: “I believe these and all the truths which the Holy Catholic Church teaches because you have revealed them, who are eternal truth and wisdom, who can neither deceive nor be deceived. In this faith I intend to live and die.” I was a very pious young man.

Orthodoxy, however, is not life-centered but doctrine-centered. When orthodoxy is stressed, people are taught the official doctrine and must then unquestioningly accept that doctrine. Many people, however, can know and accept doctrine while still not living and behaving as Christians.

In the early twentieth century, the Catholic stress on orthodoxy was quite strong. From 1910 to 1967, all Roman Catholic “clergy, pastors, confessors, preachers, religious superiors, and professors in philosophical-theological seminaries” had to take the Oath Against Modernism, because theological modernism was considered dangerous. It interpreted Christian teaching by taking into consideration modern knowledge, science, and ethics. It emphasized the importance of reason and experience over doctrinal authority.

The Oath Against Modernism marked a high point in Pope Pius X’s campaign against “modernism” which he denounced as heretical. Although Pius X died in 1914, after being Pope for eleven years, his very far right influence on Catholic thought control lasted a long time.

Well, in the fullness of time, John Dick grew up and became an open-minded professor of historical theology in a “philosophical-theological seminary.” Fortunately, he never had to take the Oath Against Modernism. He did occasionally have to confront a couple bishops who strongly resonated with Pius X’s narrow vision and accused him of heretical teachings. One — now a retired East Coast cardinal — even tried, without success, to get him fired from the Catholic University of Leuven.

A bit of church history: The focus on a strongly enforced orthodoxy in Christianity began in 310 CE when the Roman Emperor Constantine (272-337) legalized Christianity in his Roman Empire. Although he was not baptized until close to death in 337, Constantine was very pragmatic about Christianity and wanted to use it for his own political agenda. He and his mother Helena (Flavia Julia Helena, c. 246–330) were already in the process of making it the state religion of the Roman Empire. Christianity did become the official state religion of the Roman Empire in 380 CE upon the issuance of the Edict of Thessalonica by Emperor Theodosius I.

Stressing his pragmatic use of Christianity, Constantine organized the First Council of Nicaea, from May to August 325 in Nicaea, which is modern-day İznik, Turkey. Christian bishops had to attend. Most significantly, the Council of Nicaea issued the very first uniform statement of orthodox Christian doctrine, called the Nicene Creed. Anyone who refused to obediently accept the Nicene Creed was excommunicated and exiled…or worse.

It is especially significant that the Nicene Creed says nothing about orthopraxy: nothing about correct Christian behavior. After Nicaea, Constantine continued his program, a profound “Constantinian shift” turning the previously pacifist and persecuted Christianity into a religion of military might and imperial power. Many historians wonder of course if Constantine was a genuine Christian believer or a user of Christianity to further his goals.

Constantine gave the world its first experience of “Christian Nationalism.” But, as Fr. Richard Rohr (born 1943) wrote a few years ago: “When Christians began to gain positions of power and privilege, they also began to ignore segments of Scriptures, especially the Sermon on the Mount. This is what allowed ‘Christian’ empires throughout history to brutalize and oppress others in the name of God.”

Christian nationalism is a problem around the world today of course. In North America, Project 2025, a 900-plus page policy blueprint organized by American right-wing think tank, The Heritage Foundation, is a plan to embed Christian Nationalist ideology into the federal government under the incumbent presidential administration.

But I would ask if Christian nationalists today are genuine believers or users of Christian rhetoric to further their own unchristian objectives.

• Jack

Dr. John A. Dick – Historical Theologian

  Email: jadleuven@gmail.com

As an historical theologian, I continue to study the evolution of Christian beliefs, doctrines, and interpretations of Scripture across different eras. This week, several readers have asked me for a contemporary clarification of Roman Catholic perspectives on LGBTQ people.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church is a reference work that summarizes the Catholic Church’s doctrine. It was promulgated by Pope John Paul II (1920-2095) in 1992. The Catechism names “homosexual acts” as “intrinsically immoral and contrary to the natural law,” and names “homosexual tendencies” as “objectively disordered.”

In his last personal work, Memory and Identity, published in 2005, Pope John Paul II referred to the “pressures” on the European Parliament to permit “homosexual marriage.’’ He wrote: “It is legitimate and necessary to ask oneself if this is not perhaps part of a new ideology of evil, perhaps more insidious and hidden, which attempts to pit human rights against the family and against man.”

Pope Benedict XVI (1927-2022) basically agreed with John Paul II, holding the traditional Catholic position that while individuals with homosexual inclinations should be treated with respect and compassion, homosexual acts and same-sex marriage were considered “intrinsically disordered”

Pope Francis (1936 – April 21, 2025) adopted a significantly more accommodating tone on LGBTQ topics than his predecessors. In July 2013, his televised “Who am I to judge?” statement was widely reported in the international press, becoming one of his most famous statements on LGBTQ people. Nevertheless, on topics directly effecting LGBTQ people, his words and actions, during his 12-year leadership, were mixed at best.

On September 25, 2023, in a responsum to conservative cardinals before the 16th World Synod of Bishops, Francis expressed an openness to blessings for same-sex couples as long as they did not misrepresent the Catholic position that marriage is not possible for same-sex people and can only be between one man and one woman.

On May 27, 2024, during a closed-door meeting of the Episcopal Conference of Italy, Pope Francis, using words that denigrated gay men, strongly opposed the admittance of gay men as seminarians.

On July 30, 2025, in a wide-ranging interview with Crux Senior Correspondent Elise Ann Allen, Pope Leo XIV (born 1955 and elected pope on May 8, 2025)  said that his approach to LGBTQ Catholics would be similar to that of his predecessor, saying the Church must accept “everyone, everyone, everyone.” Yet, he rejected doctrinal changes such as recognizing same-sex marriage, asserting that “the teaching of the Church will remain unchanged.”

Nevertheless, starting especially in 2023, elements of change have begun to appear in the Catholic Church.

 

On March 10^th 2023, for example, the German Catholic bishops approved same-sex blessings, as part of a vote by the Synodal Path. The resolution called for blessing ceremonies for same-sex couples to be officially allowed in German Catholic dioceses.

An especially significant moment came on September 6, 2025, when LGBTQ Catholics in rainbow attire took part in the first officially recognized LGBTQ pilgrimage to Rome during the Roman Catholic Jubilee Year. The pilgrimage included a procession through the Holy Door of St. Peter’s Basilica. The event saw over a thousand participants from around the world. A Mass was celebrated for the pilgrims in Rome’s Church of the Gesù, presided over by Bishop Francesco Savino, Bishop of the Diocese of Cassano and Vice President of the Italian Bishops’ Conference for Southern Italy.

In his homily, Bishop Savino spoke about restoring dignity to those who have been denied it. “Before sharing what the Word of God generated in me and what the Spirit generated in me, I would like to obediently listen to its action and invite you all to look at each other. Look at each other! Look at each other! We are a group of faces facing. We are a group of real stories. We are a group of people who ask with dignity, authenticity, and truth to be recognized. Each one with their own story. Each one with their own wounds. But each with their own beauty, with the beauty that lives within each of us, regardless of our fragilities. And we want to leave this celebration more joyful and more hopeful than ever. We want to leave convinced that God loves us, of a singular and unique love, of an asymmetrical love, of a love without conditions.”

Yes. There has been positive development in the Roman Catholic understanding of human sexuality. I was thinking recently about my theologian friend Todd A. Salzman and his colleague Michael G. Lawler, at Creighton University, in Omaha, Nebraska. In 2008, they published their ground-breaking book The Sexual Person (Georgetown University Press). They stressed that two principles had captured the essence of the official Catholic position on the morality of sexuality: first, that any human genital act must occur within the framework of heterosexual marriage; second, each and every marriage act must remain open to the transmission of life.

Remaining firmly within the Catholic tradition, they contended that the Catholic Church has been inconsistent in its teaching by adopting a dynamic, historically conscious anthropology and worldview on social ethics and the interpretation of scripture while adopting a static, classicist anthropology and worldview on sexual ethics. While some documents from the 1962-1965 Vatican II, like Gaudium et spes (“the marital act promotes self-giving by which spouses enrich each other”), gave hope for a renewed understanding of sexuality, the church had not carried out the full implications of this approach.

In short, Salzman and Lawler emphasized relationships, not acts, and recognized Christianity’s historically and culturally conditioned understanding of human sexuality.The Sexual Person draws historically, methodologically, and anthropologically from the best of Catholic tradition.It provides a context for theological conversations between “traditionalists” and “revisionists” regarding marriage, cohabitation, homosexuality, reproductive technologies, and what it means to be human.

In a 2024 article in Theological Studies, Todd Salzman and Michael Lawler stressed: “There is ambivalence in definitions of Catholic sexual human dignity and Catholic social human dignity, which lead to inconsistencies in the foundation and justification of moral doctrine.” They warn about “harm that results from inconsistent definitions of human dignity in doctrinal teaching.”

Their most recent book, which I strongly recommend is Sexual and Gender Doctrinal Language: A Source of Pain and Trauma in the Catholic Church (Paulist Press, 2025). Here they underline that official doctrinal language on sexual and gender issues causes pain and trauma for many contemporary Catholics. Relying on the sources of ethical knowledge (tradition, scripture, reason, and experience), Todd and Michael propose revisions to Catholic anthropology, ecclesiology, and ethical methodology supporting those doctrines. This would continue to move the Catholic Church forward and to realize the synodal ecclesiology and “new pastoral methods” of Pope Francis (1936-2025), as exemplified in his April 8, 2016, apostolic exhortation, Amoris Laetitia.

In his foreword to the book, James F. Keenan, SJ, moral theologian, bioethicist, and professor at Boston College, writes: “We ethicists believe that we must find the truth, and in part that means naming not only what is lacking, but what was not virtuously expressed. In this work, Lawler and Salzman offer their insights into the ongoing discourse to find virtuous pathways for contemporary Christians on the way of the Lord.”

Roman Catholic institutional change often comes slowly. But it does happen.

Jack

___________________

Dr. John A. Dick 

“History gives answers to those who know how to ask questions.”

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Reflecting about news reports around the world this past week, I was thinking about “truth.” Two historic quotations came to mind. The first, from the American writer William Faulkner (1897- 1962): “Never be afraid to raise your voice for honesty and truth and compassion against injustice and lying and greed. If people all over the world would do this, it would change the earth.”

The second, from Hannah Arendt (1906 – 1975), the German historian and philosopher, who became interested in how the most outrageous lies get a political hold over people, ever since Nazi lies about the Jews and intellectuals drove her from Berlin in 1933 after her arrest by the Gestapo. 

Hannah Arendt wrote: “This constant lying is not aimed at making the people believe a lie, but at ensuring that no one believes anything anymore. A people that can no longer distinguish between truth and lies cannot distinguish between right and wrong. And such people, deprived of the power to think and judge, are, without knowing and willing it, completely subjected to the rule of lies. With such people, you can do whatever you want.”

When people lose the ability to be critical observers and critical thinkers, they become unable to distinguish between facts and falsehoods. They can no longer recognize “the big lie.”

“The big lie” is a great distortion of truth. It was the propaganda technique, coined by Adolf Hitler (1889-1945) in his 1925 book Mein Kampf. There he wrote: “The great masses of the people… will more easily fall victim to a big lie than to a small one.”

Hitler stressed that if a known falsehood was repeated regularly and treated as true, “the big lie” would be taken for granted and no longer questioned.

Confronting today’s “big lies,” we all need to exercise critical thinking skills: observing and asking critical questions. What is the source of the information? Is it a reliable source? People who spread fake news and “alternative facts” sometimes create web pages, newspaper stories, or AI-generated images that look official, but are not.

I very much believe the old Latin proverb Veritas Vincit (“Truth Prevails”). But it can only happen if we all work together.

What sources of news can one trust? A credible news report will include a variety of facts, quotes from bonafide experts, official statistics, or detailed and corroborated eye-witness accounts from people on the scene. If these are missing, one should question the report’s truth and accuracy. Does the evidence prove that something definitely happened? Or, have the facts been selected or “twisted” to back up a particular fabricated viewpoint?

As a good friend observed this past week: “Now, as a major diplomatic situation unfolds, Brian Burch, the American ambassador to the Vatican, has chosen to ignore Pope Leo’s public declaration that the sovereignty of Venezuela must be restored and respected. Instead, he asserts that the Catholic Church and the United States are ‘on the same page’ regarding America’s invasion of Venezuela.”

Ultimately, people will come to the realization that denying the truth doesn’t change the facts. But sometimes the process goes painfully slow.

I often think about the observation of Mahatma Gandhi (1869-1948), the Indian lawyer, anti-colonial nationalist, and political ethicist: “When I despair, I remember that all through history the way of truth and love have always won. There have been tyrants and murderers, and for a time, they can seem invincible, but in the end, they always fall. Think of it–always.”

• Jack

 

Over the 2025 Christmas holidays, contemporary American political leadership, with its staunch support for Christian Nationalist Authoritarianism seems to have been working hard to transform American society and even re-write American history.

Christian Nationalist Authoritarianism promotes a specific kind of conservative Christian civic life and argues that only “Christians” can be “true Americans.” It merges right-wing religious ideology with anti-democratic, pro-authoritarian political views, as it pursues the Seven Mountain Mandate: a belief, promoted by the New Apostolic Reformation movement (NAR), that the current political administration has a divine commission to take over and control the “seven spheres” of society: family, religion, education, media, entertainment, business, and government.

I remember the words of Charlie Kirk (1993-2025), speaking on February 27, 2020, at the Conservative Political Action Conference in Fort Washington, Maryland: “Finally we have a president that understands the seven mountains of cultural influence.” Very interestingly a January 2024 poll by Denison University, a a private liberal arts college in Granville, Ohio in Granville, Ohio found that 41% of American Christians believe in the Seven Mountain Mandate.

Promoters of Christian Nationalist Authoritarianism are actually quite ignorant about American history. The incumbent American Vice President is a good example. Speaking at the Turning Point USA  [Turning Point was founded by Charlie Kirk] “AmericaFest” conference on December 21, 2025, the Vice President said, to great applause: “The only thing that has truly served as an anchor of the United States of America is that we have been, and by the grace of God we always will be, a Christian nation.” But that is really not true.

The Declaration of Independence (July 4, 1776) appealed to “the laws of Nature and Nature’s God” and asserted that all people have basic rights “endowed by their Creator.” The Founders, however, did not want the nation to be controlled by theocrats. They understood the importance of separating “church” and “state” as important for the protection of “church” and for the protection of the “state.”

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution, adopted on December 15, 1791, prevents Congress from making laws respecting an establishment of religion; prohibiting the free exercise of religion; or abridging the freedom of speech, the freedom of the press, the freedom of assembly, or the right to petition the government for redress of grievances. It is one of the ten amendments that make up the Bill of Rights.

Already in 1790, the year after he took office as the nation’s First President, George Washington assured a Jewish congregation in Newport, Rhode Island, that in the United States of America, “all possess alike liberty of conscience and immunities of citizenship.” The Government of the United States, he wrote, “gives to bigotry no sanction” and “to persecution no assistance.” He hoped that Jewish Americans woukd “continue to merit and enjoy the good will of the other inhabitants, while everyone shall sit in safety under his own vine and fig tree and there shall be none to make him afraid.”

The contemporary United States is a country that is 71% Christian. But more than 20% of older Americans today have no religious preference. Some are atheists or agnostics. Others simply identify as “nothing in particular.” Over 45% of today’s young adult Americans, aged 20 to 34, however, identify as “non-religious,” a significant shift from about thirty years ago.

Contemporary Christian Nationalist Authoritarianism is a dangerous socio-political virus. It not only threatens democracy and denigrates specific groups of people but advocates behavior contrary to the life and teachings of Jesus Christ.

Yes. There will be a lot to think about and react to in 2026, the year that we will celebrate the 250^th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, when British colonists on the North American continent launched the experiment of a government based on the rule of law created by the people themselves. I have no doubts that 2026 will be an incredibly significant year.

A good 2026 new year’s resolution for all of us is making a renewed commitment to see and reflect as we work together with compassion, understanding, and mutual respect.

• Jack

 

 

.

My 2025 Christmas reflection is “Journey of the Magi” by Thomas Stearns Eliot (1888 – 1965), better known as “T.S. Eliot.”

Eliot was born in St. Louis, Missouri but moved to England in 1914 at the age of 25. He became a British citizen in 1927. That same year he converted to the Anglo-Catholic Church, and wrote “Journey of the Magi.” Eliot described his religious beliefs as “a Catholic cast of mind, a Calvinist heritage, and a Puritanical temperament.” 

Eliot’s “Journey of the Magi” retells the symbolic story of the biblical Magi who, according to the Gospel of Matthew, travelled to Bethlehem to visit the newborn Jesus. The poem is a narrative, told from the point of view of one of the Magi. It expresses themes of alienation, regret, and a feeling of powerlessness in a world that has changed. In 1927, T.S. Eliot’s spiritual world had changed significantly as well.

The birth of Jesus was the death of the world of magic, astrology, and paganism (cf Colossians 2:20). Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection brought change, hope, and new life.

The speaker, recalling his journey in old age, suggests that after that birth his world had died, and he had little to do but wait for his own death and movement to new life. The poem is not pessimistic. But the journey’s physical hardships mirror the internal struggle of letting go of old beliefs for a deeper truth, revealing that spiritual awakening can be a traumatic but necessary path to a new meaning. T.S. Eliot’s spiritual awakening was his letting go of Unitarianism and becoming an Anglo-Catholic Christian.

T.S. Eliot is my favorite poet. His lines from the poem “Little Gidding” inspired my blog: “For last year’s words belong to last year’s language. And next year’s words await another voice. And to make an end is to make a beginning.”

 

JOURNEY OF THE MAGI

 

A cold coming we had of it,

Just the worst time of the year

For a journey, and such a long journey:

The ways deep and the weather sharp,

The very dead of winter.’

And the camels galled, sorefooted, refractory,

Lying down in the melting snow.

There were times we regretted.

The summer palaces on slopes, the terraces,

And the silken girls bringing sherbet.

Then the camel men cursing and grumbling

and running away, and wanting their liquor and women,

And the night-fires going out, and the lack of shelters,

And the cities hostile and the towns unfriendly.

And the villages dirty and charging high prices.

A hard time we had of it.

At the end we preferred to travel all night,

Sleeping in snatches,

With the voices singing in our ears, saying

That this was all folly.

Then at dawn we came down to a temperate valley,

Wet, below the snow line, smelling of vegetation;

With a running stream and a water-mill beating the darkness,

And three trees on the low sky,

And an old white horse galloped away in the meadow.

Then we came to a tavern with vine-leaves over the lintel,

Six hands at an open door dicing for pieces of silver,

And feet kicking the empty wine-skins.

But there was no information, and so we continued

And arriving at evening, not a moment too soon

Finding the place; it was (you might say) satisfactory.

All this was a long time ago, I remember,

And I would do it again, but set down.

This set down.

This: were we led all that way for

Birth or Death? There was a Birth, certainly

We had evidence and no doubt. I had seen birth and death,

But had thought they were different; this Birth was

Hard and bitter agony for us, like Death, our death.

We returned to our places, these Kingdoms,

But no longer at ease here, in the old dispensation,

With an alien people clutching their gods.

I should be glad of another death.

My warmest regards to all and every good wish for Christmas and the New Year 2026.  I will be with family and friends for a couple of weeks but return to Another Voice on January 7th.

• Jack

 

I know that over the years I have touched on the Jesus Infancy Narratives. But I return to them again in this second week of Advent 2025, simply because so many people have asked me to do that.

The Infancy Narratives are not strictly historical. They are creative images to convey theological perspectives on the historical Jesus. Our Sacred Scriptures, in fact, have a variety of literary forms by which our Christian beliefs are expressed and communicated. We find poetry, drama, symbolism, metaphors, imaginative recreations of past events, and varying degrees of historical narration.

The Bible – Hebrew Scriptures & New Testament — has a lot of history of course but it is not primarily a history book. The focus is the human Faith Experience and Hebrew and Christian beliefs, often expressed symbolically.    I resonate with the observation of the Irish-American biblical scholar John Dominic Crossan (born 1934): “My point, once again, is not that those ancient people told literal stories and we are now smart enough to take them symbolically, but that they told them symbolical and we are now dumb enough to take them literally.”

Most people really ignore the differences found in the Jesus Infancy Narratives in Matthew, chapters 1 and 2, and Luke, chapters 1:5 to 2:52. They simply combine the accounts without noticing the differences. Nor do they know or realize that folkloric legends that began centuries after Jesus’ birth were added to the mix.

In Matthew we do find: the visit of the wise men, the star, and Herod’s plot to kill Jesus. These are not found in Luke however.

In Luke, on the other hand, we find: the birth of John the Baptist, the shepherds, and the presentation of Jesus at the Temple. But these are not found in Matthew.

The differences between Matthew and Luke are nearly impossible to reconcile, although they do share some similarities.

The U.S. American biblical scholar and Catholic priest, John Meier (1942 to 2022), often stressed that Jesus’ birth in Bethlehem is not to be taken as an historical fact. Meier describes it as a “theological affirmation put into the form of an apparently historical narrative.”

For example, the belief that Jesus was a descendant of King David led to the development of a story about his birth in Bethlehem, because King David (c. 1010 to c. 970 BCE) was born and raised in Bethlehem.

The Bethlehem Church of the Nativity, built in the fourth century CE and located in West Bank, Palestine, was built over a cave where supposedly Mary gave birth to Jesus. The church was originally commissioned by Constantine the Great (c. 272 to 337 CE) a short time after his mother Helena’s visit to Jerusalem and Bethlehem in 325 and 326 CE.

Helena (c.248 to 330) had been instructed by her son to find important Christian places and artifacts, since Christianity was becoming the dominant religion of the Roman Empire. She hired “helpful” tour guides.

Helena paid her tour guides very well, and they came up with very creative “discoveries” for her that greatly pleased her son Constantine. Helena’s tour guides found a bunch of old bones called the “relics of the Magi.” They were kept first in Constantinople; but then moved to Milan.

Eight centuries later, in 1164, the Holy Roman Emperor Frederick Barbarossa (1122 to 1190) took the “relics of the Magi” and gave them to the Archbishop of Cologne. Whatever they really are has been debated since 1864 when the contents of the reliquary were examined. Researchers found human bones, some young and some old; remnants of clothing; and coins from the the twelfth century. The relics are still in Cologne Cathedral.

[Helena’s tour guides also found for her: three pieces of wood said to be actual pieces of the “True Cross;” two thorns, said to be from Jesus’ crown of thorns; and a piece of a bronze nail, said to be from the crucifixion itself. And finally, they found a piece of wood said to be from the sign Pontius Pilate was said to have erected over Jesus when he was crucified. Helena and Constantine were delighted.]

Some differences in Infancy Narratives: Unlike the infancy narrative in Luke, Matthew mentions nothing about a census, nothing about a journey to Bethlehem, and nothing about Jesus’ birth in a stable. In Matthew, after Jesus’ birth in Bethlehem, the Wise Men from the east visit Baby Jesus at Joseph and Mary’s house in Bethlehem. They were led there by a star, to fulfill the Hebrew Scriptures prophecy of Micah 5:2, that a ruler for Israel would come from Bethlehem.

Most contemporary scholars do not consider Matthew’s story about a star leading the Wise Men to Jesus to have been an historical event. The ancients believed that astronomical phenomena were connected to terrestrial events. Linking a birth to the first appearance of a star was consistent with a popular belief that each person’s life was linked to a particular star.

According to Luke, a census was called for throughout the Roman Empire. It meant that Joseph and a very pregnant young Mary – probably between 12 or 14 years old — had to go to Bethlehem, since Joseph was of the “house of David.” It could have taken nearly a week to do this journey. When they got there, there was “no room for them in the inn,” and so Jesus was born and put in a stable’s manger. [Some people really do not know that a manger is a feeding trough for animals. The English word comes from the Old French word mangier — meaning “to eat” — from the Latin mandere, meaning “to chew.”]

Difficulties in Luke: There are major difficulties in accepting Luke’s Roman census account. First it could not have happened in the days of King Herod. Luke refers to a worldwide census under Caesar Augustus when Quirinius was governor of Syria. But Publius Sulpicius Quirinius was not appointed as the governor of Syria until 6 CE, when Herod had already been dead for ten years.

In addition, according to the records of ancient Roman history, no such census under Caesar Augustus ever took place. In fact, there was no single census of the entire Roman Empire under Augustus. More importantly, no Roman census ever required people to travel from their own homes to those of distant ancestors. A census of Judaea, therefore, would not have affected Joseph and his family, living in Galilee.

Luke clearly followed the models of historical narrative which were current in his day. He needed an explanation for bringing Joseph and Mary to Bethlehem, in order to have Jesus born there. Let’s call the journey to Bethlehem an example of Luke’s “creative historical imagination.”

In Luke, we have no Wise Men, as we saw in Matthew, but angels appear to lowly shepherds, telling them to visit Baby Jesus. The angels then sing out the famous words: “Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, and good will to all people.”

According to Luke, Jesus was circumcised eight days after his birth. Then forty days after his birth, Mary and Joseph took the infant Jesus to the Temple in Jerusalem to complete Mary’s ritual purification after childbirth. Mary and Joseph simply followed the regulations in Leviticus 12:1-8. The holy family then returned to their home in Nazareth. Notice that Luke makes no mention of a trip to Egypt, which was mentioned by Matthew in chapter 2.

Luke’s Infancy Narrative concludes with the story about a very bright twelve-year-old Jesus. While on a trip to Jerusalem, Mary and Joseph temporarily could not find  Jesus. But to their later amazement, they later found him speaking in the temple and astounding the temple teachers with his understanding.

To summarize:

Matthew’s infancy narrative, written between 80 and 90 CE, and after the Jerusalem Temple’s destruction in 70 CE, focuses on establishing that Jesus was the promised Hebrew Messiah, the fulfilling Hebrew Scripture prophecy for his Hebrew-Christian audience. Matthew’s genealogy (Matthew 1:1-17) traces Jesus’ lineage therefore from Abraham to Joseph, structured in three sets of 14 generations to emphasize Jesus as the promised Messiah.

Luke’s infancy narrative, also written between 80 and 90 CE, focuses on Jesus as the universal Savior for all people, emphasizing his humble birth and God’s care for the marginalized, setting the stage for Jesus’ mission of global witness and salvation, not just for those linked with the Hebrew tradition. Luke’s genealogy (Luke 3:23-38) traces Jesus’s lineage backward from Joseph, through David, Abraham, and all the way to Adam and God, emphasizing that Jesus is for all humanity.

We, two thousand years later, are astounded by Jesus, his life, and his message.

The Infancy Narratives in Matthew and Luke give us some of the most cherished New Testament images, which have influenced and inspired the imagination of all who read them. As we hear these familiar stories once again this Christmas, we would do well to remember that these Infancy Narratives are not just about Baby Jesus.

The Infancy Narratives are about Jesus’ vision and spirit. They animate us and give us hope for today and tomorrow.

• Jack

 

In this first week of Advent 2025, I would like to share some thoughts for new as well as regular Another Voice readers, about history and figuring out the date for Jesus’ birthday.

One thing that older historians learn is that life is neither linear nor circular. Life is spiral. As we grow, we notice some things coming around again. But we see them from a better perspective and often with a deeper understanding. This certainly applies to the history of Jesus of Nazareth.

The “birthday” of Jesus of Nazareth is not mentioned anywhere in the New Testament, which is quite silent about the day or the time of year when Mary gave birth to her son. Historians know that in keeping with Hebrew customs at the time, Mary was between 12 and 14 years old when her son Jesus was born. Her husband was probably a couple years older. In Aramaic, the language spoken by Jesus and his parents, Mary was called Myriam.

We know very little about Mary’s husband Joseph. He is not mentioned in the Gospels after the incident, mentioned in Luke 2:41-52, where the 12-year-old Jesus was left behind in Jerusalem. Nor is he mentioned at the crucifixion when Jesus entrusted his mother to the care of the “beloved disciple.”

[Interesting of course is that the Gospel of Mark mentions Jesus’ brothers, named: James, Joses (Joseph), Judas, and Simon. The passage also mentions that Jesus had sisters, though they are not named. The reference appears in Mark 6:3. But this leads to a discussion for another time.]

Today we know that the actual date for the birth of Jesus (Yeshua in Hebrew) is unknown. It is not found in the Gospels nor in any bonafide historical sources. Most contemporary biblical scholars and historians suggest, however, that Jesus’ birth was between 6 and 4 BCE. [The designations with “CE” (for Common Era) originated in 1708 but were not widely used until the late 20th century, particularly in scientific and academic fields. Jewish scholars have used “CE” frequently for over a century. Its broader adoption today is due to its cultural neutrality compared to the religiously specific BC/AD designations.]

Early Christians did not focus on Jesus’ birth. The key Jesus-event for them was Easter. They rejoiced in their belief that Jesus was raised from the dead and entered a new form of life: promising new life for all who believed and followed him. Christians were and are Easter people.

In the second century, some Christians did begin to celebrate Jesus’ birth. But there was no agreement about a specific birth date. The infancy narratives in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke do not mention a date or time of year for the birth of Jesus. The eminent Catholic theologian Karl Rahner, S.J. (1904-1984) stressed that the authors of the Gospels focused on theological beliefs rather than historical chronologies.

In the third century, however, the precise date for celebrating Jesus’s birth became a subject of great interest, with early Christian writers suggesting various dates. Later in the early fourth century, some Christian writers acknowledged that Jesus’ birth coincided with the winter solstice. They saw the lengthening days after the winter solstice as symbolizing the Light of Christ entering the world.

Around 350 CE, Pope Julius I (280-352) officially set December 25^th as the date for celebrating Jesus’ birth. By the end of the 4th century, December 25^th was widely recognized as the date for celebrating Jesus’ birth (centuries later called Christmas) in the Western Roman Empire. January 6 was the date in the East.

The word Christmas arrived in Old English in 1038 as Cristemasse, a shortened form of “Christ’s Mass,” which referred to a celebration of the Eucharist (Mass) to commemorate the birth of Jesus.

Most historians do not believe that the December 25 Jesus’ birth date was created by copying the Roman  Sol Invictus (Invincible Sun) festival, though but the claim still remains popular with some people. The claim, however, is not supported by historical evidence, which indicates that the Sol Invictus festival was not originally celebrated on December 25^th.

Historians stress that the Roman Emperor Aurelianus (214-275) changed the festival of the Sol Invictus date to December 25^th in 274 CE, to counteract Christianity’s growing influence. Prior to this, the Sol Invictus had been celebrated earlier in December. Christian leaders like Hippolytus of Rome (170-235), who was Bishop of Rome and one of the most important Christian theologians of the second and third centuries, had identified and stressed December 25^th as Jesus’ birth date long before the earliest records of Sol Invictus being celebrated on that day.

Actually, the idea of linking the birth of Jesus with the Sol Invictus festival was first suggested in the 12th century and later popularized by post-Enlightenment scholars.

When it comes to the New Testament Jesus Infancy Narratives, I suspect that most people simply ignore the differences found in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke. They easily combine the accounts without noticing the differences. Nor do they realize that imaginative infancy suppositions, that arose centuries after Jesus’ birth, got thrown into the mix.

In reality, most of our contemporary Jesus-birth imagery comes from the Catholic friar, Giovanni di Pietro di Bernardone (1181-1226), known today as St. Francis of Assisi.

As Christmas approached in 1223, St. Francis asked his friend Giovanni Velita to help him create a live Nativity scene. They set up a cave with animals, a hay-filled manger, and real people portraying Mary and Joseph. Francis had a statue of a baby for infant Jesus; and he himself would proclaim the Gospel, inviting all to enter into the story of Jesus Christ’s birth.

On Christmas eve 1223, people gathered with candles and torches to see and experience the live Nativity scene. It was in fact much more than just a display. It was a spiritual encounter with the miracle of the Incarnation. An eyewitness account reports that during the Mass, a real infant somehow appeared in the manger, and St. Francis, filled with joy, embraced the child.

St. Francis’s Nativity scene spread quickly, becoming a long-standing tradition. It was not just an historic display, but an invitation to experience the meaning of Jesus’ birth firsthand: seeing his humility, poverty, and love.

As we celebrate Christmas in three weeks, we are invited to do the same. St. Francis’s Nativity scene calls us to reflect on the simplicity of Jesus’ birth and the love that came with it: the love that we share because God is love.

Next week, in keeping with the season, some thoughts about the Jesus Infancy Narratives in Matthew and Luke.

Jack

 ****

I am thankful for the Another Voice donations that have come in so far. In case someone would still like to donate, I include donation info – one last time — with three primary ways readers can contribute:

• By U.S. dollar check made out to “John Dick” and sent to my niece in Michigan who will deposit it to my U.S. bank. Send to: Dr. J. A. Dick c/o Mrs. Sarah Dickinson, 15298 Remington Lane, Holland MI 49424.

• By ZELLE using:       jadleuven@gmail.com

• By credit card or PayPal. Simply click on this link:   

https://www.paypal.com/donate?hosted_button_id=PKYCT8S5Q44SN

 

 

 

Dear Another Voice Friends,

          Thinking about U.S. Thanksgiving this week, I am very thankful for your continued interest in Another Voice, which I launched in 2010. As I do once a year, I am inviting you to contribute to my annual appeal.

          As you know there is no charge for my weekly blog. But I am an older, low-income, retired person. My ICT equipment is getting old just like its owner. I hope to continue writing each week with helpful reflections about religion and values in contemporary society.

          Your support is greatly appreciated and there are several ways one can contribute:

• By credit card or PayPal. Simply click on this link:  

https://www.paypal.com/donate?hosted_button_id=PKYCT8S5Q44SN

• By ZELLE via:       jadleuven@gmail.com
• With a US dollars check, made out to “John A. Dick” and sent to:

               Dr. J. A. Dick c/o Mrs. Sarah Dickinson

15298 Remington Lane Holland MI 49424

• By international bank transfer to my Belgian bank account:

                          BNP Paribas Fortis Bank,

Warandeberg 3, 1000 Brussels)

                          SWIFT CODE:     GEBABEBB

                          IBAN:    BE83 2300 3923 6015

 

Many very sincere thanks. If you have any questions,

please contact me at john.dick@kuleuven.be

          – “Jack” – Dr. John A. Dick , Leuven – Louvain

For many years, I have been actively involved in Catholic Church reform movements, advocating for a church that accepts men and women as equals, that is not run by an authoritarian old-boys club, and that is LGBTQ supportive. I write and lecture as well about the dangers of rigid fundamentalisms and advocate for an historical-critical understanding of Sacred Scripture.

That being said, my current focus is the need for spirituality.

Some people equate spirituality with religion, but the two are different. Religion is the medium not the message. Healthy religion should promote spirituality; but it does not always happen. A lot of contemporary people, like the “nones,” are, in fact, turned off by institutional religion and proclaim that they are “spiritual but not religious.” People hungry and thirsty for spirituality are searching for satisfying and solid nourishment. Too often, in many churches, they are finding the cupboards bare or the food unsavory.

Over the years, a number of friends and former students have gone on pilgrimage to the shrine of the Apostle James in the cathedral of Santiago de Compostela in northwestern Spain. There they found a satisfying sense of spirituality that changed their lives. But many people can really do it closer to home.

In Chapter 7 of John’s Gospel, Jesus cries out: “Let anyone who is thirsty come to me and let the one who believes in me drink.’’ (John 7:37-38) Jesus’ call is significant. People do thirst for more. Thirst for justice, for truth, and for compassion. They thirst for the Divine.

Spirituality connects people to the Divine. To the depth of Reality. It provides peace and harmony in our lives. Spirituality goes to the very essence of what Christianity is all about. Spirituality is not something added on top of our Christian life.

Spirituality should be our way of life: in LIVED awareness of the Divine Presence, the Sacred, the Ground of Being, Emmanuel, God with us. There are many ways to describe the depth of Reality, just like there are many ways to describe what it means to love someone and to be loved. Some of the old images of God may no longer speak to contemporary people; but God has not abandoned us. And we should not abandon God. We simply need to reflect on better ways of conceptualizing and speaking about our experience of the Divine.

I still remember the observation by Dag Hammarskjold (1901-1961), former Secretary General of the UN: “God does not die on the day when we cease to believe in a personal deity, but we die on the day when our lives cease to be illumined by the steady radiance, renewed daily, of a wonder the source of which is beyond all reason.”

As I have stressed before but stress again, our communities of faith – like our schools, study groups, and our parishes — should be centers of excellence where people speak courageously about their awareness of the Divine Presence through personal shared faith stories, through drama, music, and art. And through deep reflection. We should invite and welcome the questioners and the seekers. We need to listen to young people at the start of their adult lives and to older people, confronting their life transitions.

But people, far too often, get busy and ignore what is really important in their lives. My old friend Fr. Richard Rohr (born 1943) said it well in his 2018 book Breathing Under Water:       

        “Christians are usually sincere and well-intentioned people until you get to any real issues of ego, control power, money, pleasure, and security. Then they tend to be pretty much like everybody else. They are often given a bogus version of the Gospel, some fast-food religion, without any deep transformation of the self; and the result has been the spiritual disaster of “Christian” countries that tend to be as consumer-oriented, proud, warlike, racist, class conscious, and addictive as everybody else — and often more so.”

Regardless of our place in the human journey, the Gospels remind us that God lives and walks with all women and men: all races, all nationalities. God is not focused on gender or sexual orientation. Matthew 25 is very clear: “’Lord, when was it that we saw you hungry and gave you food, or thirsty and gave you something to drink? And when was it that we saw you a stranger and welcomed you, or naked and gave you clothing? And when was it that we saw you sick or in prison and visited you?’ And the king will answer them, ‘Truly I tell you, just as you did it to one of the least of these, who are members of my family, you did it to me.’”

Christian spirituality is committed to the search for truth within a healthy multicultural and multi-religious pluralism. It involves both intellectual inquiry and personal introspection to discern facts from falsehoods and to understand one’s own beliefs. 

What to do:

• Develop personal spiritual practices. Engage in daily reflection, finding time to meditate or praying to understand your thoughts and feelings.
• Practice mindfulness, finding spiritual experiences in your daily life.
• Make a habit of recognizing and appreciating the good things in your life to boost feelings of hope and kindness.
• Develop a sense of purpose by reflecting on the meaning of your life and what you believe is right and wrong. And then act accordingly.

 

 For future reading and reflection: Awareness: Conversations with the Masters by Anthony de Melo, S.J.

 

• Jack 

(Email: john.dick@kuleuven.be)

 

My academic research and teaching, for many years, has focused on the historic interplay of religion and values in society, because we need to remember the past as we live in the present.

This week I offer a reflection about religion in Nazi Germany. The role of religion in Nazi Germany was complicated. Many leading Nazis were raised in the Christian faith, particularly Adolf Hitler (1889-1945), whose mother had been a devout Catholic. Early Nazi rhetoric and propaganda reinforced the importance of God and Christianity in the social and cultural life of Germany.

Whatever their spiritual beliefs, however, Hitler and his regime feared and detested the power and influence of organized religion, particularly the Catholic Church. They attempted to bind religion to the state to render it obedient. Where this could not be achieved, they persecuted churches and arrested dissenting church leaders.

The population of Germany in 1933 was around 60 million. Almost all Germans were Christian, either Roman Catholic (ca. 20 million) or Protestant (ca. 40 million). The Jewish community in Germany in 1933 was less than 1% of the total population.

It is noteworthy that in 1933, following Hitler’s appointment as Chancellor on January 30^th the Nazi Party rapidly transformed Germany from a democracy into a one-party totalitarian state, known as the Third Reich; and the Third Reich at once began implementing radical racist and anti-Semitic policies. Key events included the Reichstag Fire on February 27, 1933, which allowed the Nazis to suppress opposition, the establishment of the first concentration camp for political prisoners at Dachau on March 22, 1933, and the Enabling Act of March 23,1933 granting Hitler dictatorial power.

The spread of Nazi totalitarianism in 1933-34 compelled German churches to take a position on Hitler and his regime and ideology. Some Protestant churches supported the Nazi movement. They advocated the creation of a Reichskirche: a ‘state church’ loyal to Nazism and subordinate to the state. The Deutsche Kristen (“German Christians”) was the large evangelical branch of German Protestants supportive of the Reichskirche. They saw Hitler as a visionary leader who could transform and revive German Christianity. There was also a strong anti-Semitic strain within the Deutsche Kristen, however. Some of its leaders urged the rejection of Jewish texts and the expulsion of Christian converts with Jewish heritage. The leader of the Deutsche Kristen, Ludwig Muller (1883-1945), met with Hitler several times and promised his church’s support for the Nazis. Hitler therefore had him appointed Reichsbischof (“Bishop for the Reich”).

On the other hand, in May 1934, several Protestant churches united to form the Bekennende Kirche (Confessing Church), which resisted attempts to ‘Nazify’ German churches. Members of the Bekennende Kirche were strongly critical of Nazi policies during the mid-1930s, particularly its anti-Semitic policies and actions.

The most famous members of the Confessing Church were the theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer (1906-1945) arrested by the Gestapo in 1943 and executed at the Flossenbürg concentration camp in 1945 for his role in the conspiracy to overthrow the regime; and Pastor Martin Niemoller (1892-1984), who was arrested by the Gestapo in 1938 and detained in Dachau until 1945. Other members of the Bekennende Kirche risked their lives by sheltering Jewish-born Christians and supplying fugitives with forged papers during the war.

The relationship between Catholicism, Hitler’s original religion, and the Nazi Party was more conciliatory at first but quickly deteriorated. Before 1933, however, some bishops had prohibited Catholics in their dioceses from joining the Nazi Party. This ban was dropped, after Hitler’s March 23, 1933, speech to the Reichstag in which he described Christianity as the “foundation” for German values. The Catholic-aligned Center Party voted for the Enabling Act of 1933,

German Catholics had long desired a concordat – an agreement with the government that would guarantee their rights and religious freedoms. In March 1933, Hitler expressed support for this idea. But Hitler, in fact, had no great desire to protect Catholic rights and privileges. He wanted a one-sided concordat to reduce the political influence of the Catholic Church.

In April 1933, Nazi delegates began negotiations with Cardinal Eugenio Pacelli (1876-1958) the Vatican’s delegate to Germany, who became Pope Pius XII in 1939. As these negotiations progressed, the Nazis launched a wave of anti-Catholic intimidation: shutting down Catholic publications, breaking up meetings of the Catholic-based Centre Party, and throwing outspoken Catholics into concentration camps.

The resulting agreement, the Reichskonkordat, was signed into law on July 20, 1933. It was a diplomatic and political victory for the Nazis, mainly because the Catholic Church and its representatives were banned from participating in politics.

Between 1934 and 1936, the Nazis shut down several Catholic and Lutheran youth groups. Many of their members were subsequently absorbed into the Hitler Youth. Catholic schools were closed and replaced with ‘community schools’ run by Nazi sympathizers. A year-long campaign against Catholic schools in Munich in 1935 saw enrollments there drop by more than 30%.

Direct attacks on the Catholic Church and its members escalated in 1936. Dozens of Catholic priests were arrested by the Gestapo and given show trials, accused of involvement in corruption, prostitution, homosexuality,  and paedophilia. Show trials were public trials in which the guilt or innocence of the defendant had already been determined. The purpose of show trials was to present both accusations and verdicts to the public, serving as warnings to would-be dissidents.

Anti-Catholic propaganda in 1936 appeared on street corners, billboards and in the pages of the notorious anti-Semitic newspaper, Der Sturmer. This Nazi persecution produced a defensive response from the Catholic Church. In March 1937, Pope Pius XI (1857-1939) released an encyclical titled Mit brennender Sorge (‘With burning concern’). It was written by Michael von Faulhaber (1862-1952) Archbishop of Munich, in consultation with other Catholic leaders, including Cardinal Pacelli.

Mit brennender Sorge criticized Nazi breaches of the Reichskonkordat, condemned Nazi views on race, and ridiculed the glorification of politicians and the state. “Whoever exalts race, or the people, or the state, or a particular form of state… above their standard value and raises them to an idolatrous level,” the letter said, “distorts and perverts an order of the world planned and created by God.”More than 250,000 copies of the encyclical were distributed to German churches, to be read to congregations from the pulpit.

The action greatly infuriated Hitler, and the Nazi response was swift and intense. Gestapo agents raided churches and printers, seizing and destroying copies of the encyclical wherever they could be found. Propaganda and show trials against Catholic clergy gathered pace through 1938-39 and several priests ended up in the concentration camps in Dachau and Oranienburg.

Contemporary historians see Pope Pius XII’s relationship with Nazi Germany marked by controversy and debate, centered on the Pope’s wartime neutrality and public silence regarding the Holocaust. While the Vatican claims his silence stemmed from a desire for diplomacy and to protect the Catholic Church, others argue it reflected an anti-Jewish bias and a preference for authoritarianism.

Pius XII did maintain links to the German Resistance and shared intelligence with the Allies, but at the same time he developed alliances with Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy. Historical research and probing continue. But I doubt that he will be canonized like his successors John XXIII (1881-1963), Paul VI (1897-1978), and John Paul II (1920-2005).

• Jack