I am working on a family project for a few days. This week’s post, therefore, is a guest article written by my good friend Patrick B. Sullivan, DPA. Dr. Sullivan received his BA in History/Political Science and Master of Public Administration degrees from the University of Montana, a Master of Divinity degree from the Franciscan School of Theology in Berkeley, CA, and his Doctor of Public Administration from the University of Southern California. He has been a professor at two institutions for 12 years. He has a total of 50 + years of experience in the public sector. He is the past Director of the State Professional Development Center for the State of Montana. Currently, he is an independent consultant.

 

 

There are many groups in recent years who are apparently fascinated by the ten commandments. This is shown by their desire to have them displayed on courthouse lawns or in classrooms. It would seem prudent then, to take a closer look at the ten commandments in the context of today.

1. You shall have no other gods before me. You shall make no idols.

There are very few people today who create idols or worship some false god in the most literal sense. However, the commandment also warns us not to seek happiness or fulfillment in the wrong places. Only God and our intimate relationship with the divine can provide those. Too many seek happiness in what some happiness scholars refer to as “miswanting.”  We believe that if we get that great job, or the best car, or achieve prestige, we will be happy. Science shows us that this is not true. How many times, after achieving one of those goals do we find ourselves rather empty. When I completed my doctorate, I thought I would be happy, or at least happier. That is not the feeling I had at all. Instead, I just thought, “what’s next?”

2. You shall not take the name of the Lord in vain.

Most of us think that this is about actually cursing. It is more about falsely declaring that God said we should do something that goes against the primary commandment of love. When we claim that we can justify our uncharitable acts on the divine, we are taking God’s name in vain. How many times have we heard various preachers, politicians, or even sports figures declare that God has mandated that they should be successful, rich, or powerful? Religions have done this throughout the centuries. God’s name has been used to justify slavery, misogyny, and intolerance. Millions of people have been killed in the name of God.

3. Keep holy the sabbath.

When, exactly is the sabbath? Different Abrahamic traditions have different days.  Perhaps, it is every day. When Moses encounters God in the burning bush, he is told to remove his shoes, that he is standing on holy ground. So, keeping the sabbath holy could be seen as respecting that all of creation is holy every day. When something is holy, we respect it and treat it with care. This is especially true when we deal with others.  In the creation story in Genesis, the statement at the end of every day is “and it was good.”  After the sixth day, with the creation of humans, “it was very good.”  The seventh day was a day of rest but also a day of reflection.

4. Honor your father and your mother.

The difficult thing here is that our parents are not perfect. They make mistakes in caring for us. I know mine did. Nevertheless, they did bring us into this world. We give them respect for that reason alone. To honor them is to become the best person we can be. We stop blaming them for our own difficulties and grow. We also forgive their faults and celebrate their wise guidance.

5. You shall not kill.

Of course, actually killing someone other than in self defense is prohibited. God created us and we do not have the right to take that away. We also murder by neglect. When we look away when people are starving, we are killing them. Whenever we deprive people of what they need to live, we are killing them. When we fail to provide adequate health care, even though we have the resources, we are killing people.

6. You shall not commit adultery.

This is less about sexual activity and more about relationships. When we betray a solemn relationship, we harm the other person. We also harm the person with whom we betrayed. We are using another person for our own pleasure. The provision is about authenticity in all our relationships. Rape is a violent act more than it is a sexual one. Using another person’s body against their will is an act of adultery.

7. You shall not steal.

Taking what does not belong to us is more than a selfish act. It lays claim to something to which we are not entitled.  God has provided enough for everyone in this world. When we amass wealth while our neighbor is hungry, naked, or thirsty, we are stealing from them. There is no justification for having billionaires when others are suffering. When the uberwealthy claim that they are “self-made” they are stealing. This only shows a lack of gratitude and obligation to all those that got them to where they are today. There were parents, teachers, and other mentors who provided them with the skill to achieve. There are also all the workers that created their wealth and the infrastructure that made it possible. To make such a claim is selfish and false pride.

8. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.

This certainly includes falsely accusing someone of something they did not do. It even includes times when we did so without making sure of the facts.  More commonly, though, it includes gossip. When we pass along information about another person, we are sharing something that is not ours to share. This is especially a problem when we have not witnessed it ourselves. It doesn’t matter if it is true or not. We must ask ourselves the question of whether or not there is a good reason to share such information. Gossip is destructive within any group. It undermines trust for the target of gossip and the person who is sharing it.

9. You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife.

This one is a bit problematic because it implies that the neighbor’s wife is his property.  Perhaps, this needs to be understood in different ways. Again, it is about relationships. If we are looking at other people and wanting to either possess them or have them to ourselves, we are objectifying them. It also reflects a lack of gratitude for the relationship(s) we already have. It also applies to both male and female. To covet somebody is to fail to recognize their humanity.

10. You shall not covet your neighbor’s goods.

Coveting that which is not yours is an act of selfishness and lacking gratitude. The lack of gratitude is probably one of the biggest problems we have today. People are widely upset because they feel they should have more than they do. They want to find someone to blame because they don’t have enough. It’s okay to have things (within reason) but we need to be grateful for what we do have.

Notice that all of the commandments are about relationship. The first three are about relationship with God or the divine or the cosmos, whatever your preference. The rest are about relationship with each other. The ten commandments are properly summed up with the greatest commandment: “You shall love the Lord, your God with your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind, … you shall love your neighbor as yourself.” (Matthew 22:37)

 

 

After my post “God Thoughts,” several people ask me for “Jesus Thoughts.”

I am a strong believer in the significance of Jesus Christ and Christianity today, when human suffering, war, and hardened and hateful political polarization so characterize our contemporary life situation. The key issue for me is clarifying that being a Christian means not just talking about Jesus but living the way of Jesus – following the example of how he lived.

What emerges when we trace the Jesus images in the Gospels is a portrait of a human life in which the human opens to the Divine. In the earliest Gospel, Mark, we read: “After John was put in prison, Jesus went into Galilee, proclaiming the good news of God. ‘The time is fulfilled,’ he said. ‘The Reign of God has come. Repent and believe the good news!’”  (Mark 1:15)

Most biblical scholars agree that the reality of the Reign of God lies at the very heart of Jesus’ life and message. In the text from Mark, we see the beginning of Jesus’ ministry. Jesus had most likely spent some time as a follower of John the Baptizer but then recognized and responded to his own unique call from God. 

The “Reign of God” is a religious image. It is based on the metaphor of God depicted as a king. By proclaiming the Reign of God Jesus, was using figurative language that evoked the living tradition of an experience of God acting in history. For Jesus, God is not out there or up there but present and active in the lived-out events of everyday life, here and now with us. The Reign of God meant a new awareness that God’s justice would replace injustice. It meant that the poor and the marginalized would be reintegrated into society. The content of the Reign of God is reflected in Jesus’ sayings, parables, and his actions – in all the contours of his life and ministry.

Jesus experienced God’s presence and influence as close, near, and very personal. God for Jesus was not a cold-hearted taskmaster. He experienced God as an understanding, compassionate, and forgiving “Father.”  Jesus grew up in the Hebrew tradition which pictured God as male. A Hebraic anthropomorphism. God of course has no gender. God can be pictured just as much as “Mother” or “Father.”

Jesus explained life in the Reign of God very particularly in his parables. In the parable of the Good Samaritan, also known as the parable of the Neighborly Samaritan, for example, Jesus teaches a universal love that also extends to one’s enemies, whether they be personal enemies in the village or those of a particular group or nation. For Jesus the barriers between insiders and outsiders are broken down. Perhaps Christian political leaders should also be good and neighborly Samaritans?

The human Jesus opens our eyes to all that God means and enables us to see all that God is. Those who experienced Jesus experienced God’s revelation in his life. Their full understanding came after Jesus’ death and resurrection. Recall Matthew 27:53-55: “After Jesus’ resurrection…. When the centurion and those with him who were guarding Jesus saw the earthquake and all that had happened, they were terrified and said, ‘Truly this was the Son of God.’” One of my favorite post-Resurrection narratives is about the man and woman disciples on the road to Emmaus (Luke 24:13-35): “When he was at the table with them, he took bread, gave thanks, broke it and began to give it to them. Then their eyes were opened and they recognized him…. They asked each other, ‘Were not our hearts burning within us while he talked with us on the road and opened the Scriptures to us?’”

It is through the human Jesus – “Son of Humankind” and “Son of God” — that people were enabled to experience all that the word “God” means. We find that realization is so clearly expressed in the Fourth Gospel with its strong post-Resurrection belief and understanding. Recall, for instance, these passages: “For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself” (John 5:26); “If you knew me, you would know my Father also” (John 8:19); “Whoever sees me sees him who sent me” (John 12:45); “He who has seen me has seen the Father” (John 14:9); and finally, “[Just as God] has loved me, so have I loved you” (John 15:9).

The Christian way of life is a life of spirituality: a journey through and with Christ into the life of God. Life in Christ is a mystery to be lived. To live in Christ is to live what the Apostle Paul called “a new creation.” 

I would emphasize that to be a Christian is not primarily to be “a religious person.” The historical Jesus was not anti-religion but religiously critical. It is important to remember that Jesus came to show us how to be truly human much more than how to be religious. In the depth of our humanity-shared-with-others we meet the living God. “For where two or three gather in my name, there am I with them.” (Matthew 18:20)

To be a Christian is to be a whole human being; and Jesus is the portrait of that wholeness. Consider the faith system in which Jesus’ own life was nurtured. He broke religious boundaries again and again in his attempt to call people into a new humanity and to introduce them to a Divine presence manifested in the fullness of his own humanity. Anything that teaches one to hate or violate another cannot be of God. Jesus’ disciples saw and experienced in him a rare integrity. Each person whom Jesus met seemed to have the potential to become whole, to be invested with infinite worth. 

God was likened by Jesus to a wide variety of images. God was like a father who welcomed home the prodigal son (Luke 15:11–32). God was like a shepherd who searched for the lost sheep (Luke 15:3–7), or like a woman who swept diligently until she found a lost coin (Luke 15:8–10). The God Jesus seemed to know was one in whom all are welcome. (Matthew 11:28) 

Christian spirituality requires that one take time to sit back and contemplate. It is through quiet contemplation, not speedy data-processing, that we effectively process our experiences and truly explore the mystery of life. The contemplative mind sees reality in its wholeness not just in its parts. Jesus took time to contemplate as well. Recall when he began his ministry. Matthew, Mark, and Luke tell us that after being baptized by John the Baptizer he retreated to the Judean Desert to pray. Through contemplation the historical Jesus came to understand his identity with God. Luke reminds us that “He frequently withdrew to the wilderness to pray.” (Luke 5:16)

Material for our own reflection: Jesus and the mystery of life. Jesus knew joy and the camaraderie of his close friends. He also faced anger and rejection from narrow-minded religious leaders. He knew fear and anxiety. Recall his “agony in the garden” as he contemplated his own torture and death at the hands of the Romans. “Then he said to them, ‘I am deeply grieved, even to death; remain here and stay awake with me.’ And going a little farther, he threw himself on the ground and prayed, ‘My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from me; yet not what I want but what you want.’” (Matthew 26: 38 & 39)

Jesus, who uniquely cared, served and loved, suffered at the hands of oppressive religious and political authorities. He lived the mystery of life: the Reign of God. He did not abandon God. God did not abandon him.

Jesus’ reassuring message for us is that God has not abandoned us either, although, like Jesus, we can experience dark days.

 

• Jack

Some days it seems so long ago; but I clearly remember the event. Yuri Gagarin, who died 57 years ago on March 27, 1968, was a Soviet cosmonaut. He was the first human to journey into outer space, when his Vostok spacecraft completed an orbit of the Earth on April 12, 1961. Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev (1894-1971) quickly announced to the Central Committee of the Soviet Union’s Communist Party that “Gagarin flew into space but didn’t see any God up there.” Khrushchev had a big laugh about that.

In the early 1960s the “death of God” movement was also coming into prominence. It was largely inspired by the proclamation of the German philosopher Frederick Nietzsche (1844-1900) that “God is dead.” It was explored by a group of Christian theologians and philosophers, like the French Protestant theologian Gabriel Vahanian (1927-2012), the American Protestant theologian Thomas Altizer (1927-2018), and the American theologian and Episcopal priest Paul van Buren (1924-1988). The “death of God” theologians argued that traditional Christian concepts of God were obsolete in a modern, secular world.

In 1961 after Yuri Gagarin’s space trip, I remember reading Gabriel Vahanian’s historic book God is Dead: The Culture of our Post-Christian Era. (My parents saw the book and wondered what in heck was going through Jack’s head.)  Vahanian argued that the “death of God” happened when modern culture had lost a sense of the sacred. He argued for a transformation of a post-Christian and a post-modern culture. Vahanian – contrary to what some said later — was a true believer.

In many ways, Vahanian was echoing what Dietrich Bonhoeffer (1906-1945) had expressed in his Letters and Papers from Prison. During his year and a half confinement in the Berlin Tegel military prison, Bonhoeffer questioned the role of Christianity in a “world come of age,” where human beings had lost a sense of a metaphysical God. He pondered the meaning of a “religionless Christianity.” In a note dated November 21, 1943, He wrote “My fear and distrust of ‘religiosity’ have become greater than ever.” “Even those who honestly describe themselves as ‘religious’” he wrote “do not in the least act up to it and so they presumably mean something quite different by ‘religious.’” Bonhoeffer of course was reacting to all the “good Christians” who supported Adolf Hitler’s National Socialism agenda.

The central theological question of how to speak of God in a secularized and suffering world was the primary focus in the writings, after the mid-1960s, of my theological mentor, at the Catholic University in Nijmegen, Edward Schillebeeckx, OP (1914-2009). Schillebeeckx emphasized that we experience God’s love, the creative and saving presence of God’s grace, wherever human persons minister to one another, especially to the neighbor in need. “Human love,” he stressed “is an embodiment, a sacrament, of God’s love.”

Pondering the crisis of secularization in the 1960s, Schillebeeckx suggested that the death of the “God of the gaps,”as he expressed it, could be a blessing that could give birth to a more profound understanding of human responsibility for the future of human history and the cosmos. That responsibility he stressed is always undergirded and empowered by the creative presence of God. The impact of radical secularization and Western technological cultures led Schillebeeckx to seek a spirituality of hope.

The focus on God’s Spirit as the source of the human ability to “hope against hope” became even more central in the spirituality of Schillebeeckx’s writings as he turned his attention to the vast and senseless suffering in our world today. Underlying Schillebeeckx’s spirituality of hope (“grace optimism”) was the faith conviction that God holds open a future “full of hope” and that human beings are the words with which God tells the story of grace.

In 1990, Schillebeeckx wrote in his book Church: The Human Story of God that the basic experience of the first disciples after Good Friday was: “neither evil nor the cross, can have the last word. Jesus’ way of life is right and is the last word, that is sealed in his resurrection. . . Suffering and death remain absurd and may not be mystified, even in Jesus’ case; but they do not have the last word, because the liberating God was absolutely near to Jesus on the cross, as during the whole of Jesus’ career.”

Sometimes, people learn very slowly. Quite often today, I fear that God, for many people, has been turned into just a cultural artifact. Our political leaders love to say, “God bless you” but they say it the same way the check-out person at the supermarket says, “Have a good day.” Is there really any belief behind it? Too many contemporary “believers” speak and behave in ungodly ways.

Nevertheless, God is still traveling with us on our journey. But I ask how do we best think of God today? What words? What imagery? God is just as much Mother as Father. Certainly, the old Hebrew and early Christian cosmology, with God enthroned in the heavens up above Earth is a passe. Khrushchev said Gagarin did not see God in space. But Khrushchev was blinded by his own ignorance and Communist ideology.

We need spirituality. 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 out 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.

We need open minds and open hearts. 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.

Regardless of our stage in the human journey, the Gospels remind us that God lives and walks with all men and women, without making distinctions. Matthew 25:34-45, for example, is truly clear: “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father. Take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. For I was hungry, and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty, and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger, and you invited me in. I needed clothes and you clothed me. I was sick and you looked after me. I was in prison, and you came to visit me.’ Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’”

As the Franciscan spiritual writer Richard Rohr (born 1943) so often said: “The presence of God is infinite, everywhere, always, and forever. You cannot not be in the presence of God. There’s no other place to be. It is we who are not present to Presence. We will make any excuse to be somewhere else than right here. Right here, right now never seems enough. It actually is, but it is we who are not aware enough yet.”

• Jack

 

 

 

 

 

The relationship between religion and politics has been and continues to be a toxic and dangerous relationship. A key U.S. player in that relationship today is Kevin Roberts and his Heritage Foundation.

Kevin D. Roberts (born 1974) is the president of the Heritage Foundation, an activist conservative political think tank, based in Washington DC. Prior to assuming his current role, Roberts was the CEO of another conservative think tank, the Texas Public Policy Foundation, an influential think tank that opposes efforts to fight climate change and receives millions of dollars from fossil fuel interests.

Roberts is the architect of Project 2025, also known in 2024 as the “2025 Presidential Transition Project,” an initiative of the Heritage Foundation. It aims to promote conservative and right-wing policies to reshape the United States federal government and consolidate executive power under the incumbent U.S. president. It calls for dismantling the Department of Homeland Security and reducing environmental and climate change regulations to favor fossil fuels. It recommends abolishing the Department of Education and terminating its programs. Funding for climate research would be cut. The National Institutes of Health would be reformed along conservative principles and Medicare and Medicaid would be terminated.

Roberts, 2024 book titled Dawn’s Early Light: Taking Back Washington to Save America, features a foreword by J.D. Vance, in which Vance praises Roberts for “articulating a fundamentally Christian view of culture and economics.” Dawns Early Light clearly outlines the Project 2025 agenda for the United States, stressing that the country is in the midst of a “second American Revolution” that would “remain bloodless if the left allows it to be.” Vance switched from being an atheist to being a conservative Catholic and was baptized in 2019. Vance said he was drawn to the Catholic Church’s “ancient ways.”

Project 2025 lays out what is essentially a very conservative “Christian nationalist vision” of the United States, one in which married heterosexuality is the only valid form of sexual expression and identity. It opposes what it calls “radical gender ideology” and advocates that the government “maintain a biblically based, social-science-reinforced definition of marriage and family.” To achieve this, it proposes ending same-sex marriage and removing protections against discrimination on the basis of sexual or gender identity.

Project 2025 also recommends the arrest, detention, and deportation of illegal immigrants. It proposes employing the military for domestic law enforcement and calls for immediate capital punishment of convicted offenders.

What many observers do not realize is that Kevin D. Roberts, the architect of Project 2025, has close ties to the Catholic organization Opus Dei (“Work of God”). Opus Dei has long attracted significant controversy. Criticism has centered on its secretiveness and support for authoritarian, right-wing governments. An important book about Opus Dei is Their Kingdom Come: Inside the Secret World of Opus Dei by the investigative journalist Robert A. Hutchison (1938). The book was published in 1997, St. Martins Press, but the most recent version came out in May 2025. I would also recommend the important book by my friend Betty Clermont The Neo-Catholics: Implementing Christian Nationalism in America (Clarity Press, 2009).

Kevin Roberts receives regular Opus Dei spiritual guidance at the Catholic Information Center, in Washington DC, headed by an Opus Dei priest. Another Opus Dei linked U.S. Catholic is Leonard Leo (born 1965), a self-declared Opus Dei operative. He is a lawyer, judicial activist, and co-chairman of the conservative legal think tank, the Federalist Society for Law and Policy. Leo has also emerged as a key architect and funder of Project 2025, backed by billions of dollars of slush fund dark money. Leo has actually created a network of influential conservative legal groups funded mostly by anonymous donors. He assisted Chief Justice Clarence Thomas in his Supreme Court confirmation hearings in 1991. Thomas was confirmed to the Supreme Court of the United States by a narrow Senate majority of 52 to 48. Leonard Leo also led campaigns to support the nominations of the conservative justices John Roberts, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett. All far-right Catholics except Gorsuch, who was raised Catholic but is now a member of the Episcopal Church.

Opus Dei was founded in Spain in 1928 by the Catholic priest Josemaría Escrivá (1902 – 1975). Popes Pius XII (1876 – 1958), John Paul II (1920 – 2005), and Benedict XVI (1927 – 2022) were strong supporters of Opus Dei. Josemaría Escrivá was declared a saint in 2002 by Pope John Paul II, who said Escrivá should be “counted among the great witnesses of Christianity.” Well, I find it significant that Escrivá was active in bolstering the support of Fascist regimes, including that of Francisco Franco (1936 – 1975) in Spain and Augusto Pinochet (1917 – 2006) in Chile.

Although controversial, Opus Dei remains influential within the Catholic Church. Lay people make up the majority of its membership. The remainder are secular priests under the governance of a prelate (leader) elected by specific members and appointed by the Pope. Fernando Ocáriz Braña a Catholic priest born in Paris in 1944, has been the head of Opus Dei since 2017 and he is the fourth person to head Opus Dei since its founding in 1928. Two of Opus Dei’s earlier prelates were bishops appointed by Pope John Paul II. Well known in the Vatican, Ocáriz has been an advisor to the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith (DDF), once known as the Holy Office, since 1986.  In 2022, Pope Francis announced that the head of Opus Dei would no longer be a bishop, but he said he has very positive sentiments about Opus Dei.

Pope Leo XIV has shown interest in Opus Dei’s statutes and maintains a positive relationship with the organization, as evidenced by his recent audience with its Prelate and his annual Mass for the founder. Opus Dei has also been working on revising its statutes as requested by Pope Francis, and these revised statutes are currently under review by the Holy See. 

Opus Dei has more than ninety-five thousand members. The current Archbishop of Los Angeles, José Horacio Gómez (born 1951) was the first numerary member of Opus Dei to be consecrated a bishop in the United States. (A numerary member of Opus Dei is a member who takes a vow of celibacy.) Archbishop Gómez was President of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops from 2019 to 2022. Another Opus Dei bishop is John Barres (born 1960) the Bishop of the Diocese of Rockville Centre in New York. He is a graduate of Opus Dei’s Pontifical University of the Holy Cross in Rome. He joined Opus Dei as priest. In general, Opus Dei bishops in the United States tend not identify as members of Opus Dei because bishops have only one superior, the pope.

The British journalist and Associate Editor at Thomson Reuters, Gareth Gore, has written a new book about Opus Dei, which came out in early October 2024: Opus: The Cult of Dark Money, Human Trafficking, and Right-Wing Conspiracy inside the Catholic Church (Simon & Schuster, 2024). Gore observed recently: “Like Project 2025, Opus Dei at its core is a reactionary stand against the progressive drift of society. For decades now, the organization has thrown its resources at penetrating Washington’s political and legal elite and finally seems to have succeeded through its close association with men like Kevin Roberts and Leonard Leo.”

Well, a lot to think about.

I conclude this week’s reflection with a quote from Sandra Day O’Connor (1930 – 2023) who served as an associate justice of the Supreme Court of the United States from 1981 until her retirement in 2006. O’Connor was the first woman to serve as a U.S. Supreme Court justice. She retired from the bench in 2006 to care for her ailing husband. “Those who would renegotiate the boundaries between church and state must therefore answer a difficult question: Why would we trade a system that has served us so well for one that has served others so poorly?”

 

 

Truth is the property of being in accord with facts or reality. Truth is usually held to be the opposite of falsehood. Our problem today is that falsehood in politics and religion, and medical misinformation are being promoted as truth while the actual truth-speakers are being condemned as dangerous trouble-makers.

As I was reviewing some notes about “truth,” two quotations caught my attention. The first is 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 other quotation is 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. 

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.” I also recommend Arendt’s book The Origins of Totalitarianism. The most recent edition was published, very appropriately, this year in May.

Rather than making decisions on what is true or not true, many people today make decisions on what they FEEL is true or most probable. Narrow feeling perspectives replace thoughtful examination of the actual reality. In an email, for example, I asked a friend why he still strongly supports the incumbent U.S. president. His reply was polite and brief: “I just feel that God has blessed him. I feel he has been chosen by God to be president again. I trust my feelings.”

When people lose the ability to be critical observers and critical thinkers, they become unable to distinguish between verified facts and falsehoods. That becomes problematic, because they cannot recognize “the big lie.”

“The big lie” is a great distortion of truth. It was the propaganda technique, originally coined by Adolf Hitler 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 is repeated regularly and treated as true, “the big lie” will be taken for granted rather than critically questioned. The Fuehrer’s lies were regular and colossal.

The key question is how do we know what is true and what is not true when watching the news, observing elected officials, listening to religious speakers, or using social media? 

Coming from a family of educators, my focus is on education. My paternal grandfather “Alonzo” was a hoosier schoolmaster. As John Alonzo Dick, I have inherited not just his name but more importantly his commitment to education. But we all have a responsibility to educate.

We all need to help people develop critical thinking skills. This is an essential part of education: learning how to observe and ask 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.

We all need to combat ignorance. As an historian and a theologian, I realized long ago that a great many church leaders need remedial historical and biblical education. They may be well-intentioned but too often what they say about church history and biblical understandings is simply out of date and not true.

We are not expected to have all the answers on our own. As we look for truth, we can turn to trusted sources for guidance. That may mean a trusted mentor, a well-informed friend, an insightful public figure respected for her or his integrity, or a respected book using primary source material. Footnotes with documentation are important.

We ought to be greatly concerned about the survival of the humanities, now being unfunded and pushed to the side. The humanities insure and safeguard how we process document and understand the human experience. We desperately need literature, art, music, and history to truly be human and to understand who we are as human beings. Most importantly, we need the humanities to experience and relate to the Sacred – the Divine.

Fact-based knowledge, critical thinking skills, historical awareness, and anchors in art, music, and literature are essential elements in maintaining a humane and humanizing life and culture.

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?

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.”

This week’s reflection comes a couple days early because I am busy with preparations for an important family reunion.

In Rome’s church of San Pietro in Vincoli (St. Peter in Chains) not far from the Coliseum, one can find Michelangelo’s early 16^th century statue of Moses. It depicts the biblical figure with horns on his head, based on a description in chapter 34 of Exodus in the Vulgate, the Latin translation of the Hebrew Scriptures (the “Old Testament”), done in the early 4^th century by Jerome of Stridon (c.342-420), commonly known as Saint Jerome. Jerome translated the Bible into Latin between 383 and 404. He originally translated it all from Greek, but as he went on he checked his text as well with the Hebrew original. There he made a mistake, which gave us Moses with horns on his head.

There have been many creative interpretations of “Moses with horns” over the years. Some rather bizarre and some very antisemitic. Today’s biblical scholars, however, provide the best explanation.

The horns on the head of Michelangelo’s statue of Moses resulted from an incorrect translation of a text in Exodus 34, which says that Moses, as he came down from Sinai, had rays of light on his forehead. The Hebrew word karan, meaning “rays,” however was mistranslated by Jerome. He confused the Hebrew word karan with the Hebrew word keren which meant “horns.” Jerome did make some other mistakes in his Latin Vulgate translation of the Bible. Nevertheless, I find it important to affirm that Jerome’s work was a significant improvement over earlier Latin translations, collectively called the Vetus Latina.

Some well-known biblical mistranslations are still with us today. In Matthew 19:24, for example, Jesus says: “Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.” The original text in Greek had the Greek word kamilos, meaning “rope.” But an early translator misread kamilos as kamelos, meaning “camel.” The mistake has been with us for a very long time.

A translation that is still problematic is the translation of Pontius Pilate’s sign on Jesus’ cross. The Latin phrase, often abbreviated as INRI, is Iesus Nazarenus Rex Iudaeorum. [The letter “J” did not exist in the days of Jesus. It was created in 1524 CE by Gian Giorgio Trissino (1478-1550), an Italian Renaissance grammarian.]

The correct English translation of Pilate’s sign is “Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Judeans.” Not “King of the Jews.” There were no “Jews” in the days of Jesus. There were Hebrews. The Judeans were inhabitants of the province of Judea, and Pontius Pilate, who died in 39 CE, was the fifth governor of the Roman province of Judea for ten years. But Pontius Pilate had a hard time with the Judeans and continually did things to insult and provoke them. Calling the crucified Jesus their king was one of his provocations.

And of course, we have the more complicated mistranslation of Isaiah 7:14, which reads today as: “Behold a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and his name shall be called Emmanuel.” Here the mistranslation began when the ancient Hebrew language Bible was translated, in the 3^rd century BCE, from ancient Hebrew into Greek. The Greek translation was later called the “Septuagint,” based on the Latin word septuaginta for seventy because of the belief that seventy translators had worked on the project.

The mistranslation in Isaiah 7:14 involves the ancient Hebrew word almah meaning “a young woman of marriageable age.” The word does not mean a virgin. The original text, written in Hebrew in the 8^th century BCE, was Isaiah’s prediction that the faithless Ahaz, King of Judah who reigned from 732–716 BCE, would have a son who would be more godly, i.e. Emmanuel meaning “God is with us.” His son Hezekiah, who reigned from c. 715 to 686 BCE, restored worship to the God of Israel. His reign was marked by prophetic activity, with prophets such as Isaiah and Micah delivering their messages during his time.

But when the ancient Hebrew text from Isaiah 7:14 was translated into Greek, the Hebrew word almah was mistranslated as parthenos meaning “a virgin.” Centuries later Christians interpreted the Greek text of Isaiah 7:14 as a prophetic text referring to the virginal conception of Jesus, who would be “God with us.”

Some biblical translations are basically correct but miss the nuance of the original word. I give two examples. The Greek word ekklesia originally meant “a gathering” or “a community.” In New Testament English translations, it is usually translated as “church” which does not have a community nuance but an institutional nuance. My other example is the Greek word episkopos. Usually translated as “bishop,” it originally meant an “overseer” or a “guardian.” But translating episkopos as “bishop” in biblical texts can be misleading as it carries connotations of a hierarchical structure not present in the early church. More recent translations opt for “overseer,” or “pastor” to avoid these connotations.

My main point is that it is critically important that those who study and translate the Scriptures follow what we call the historical-critical method, which investigates the origins and meaning of ancient texts in order to understand the world behind the texts and what those texts mean today. Correct translations of texts are the beginning but then one must also appreciate that biblical texts contain some history but also a variety of literary forms such as symbolism, folklore, and presumed or imagined historical scenarios. The Infancy Narratives in Matthew and Luke are good examples.

Over the years as a Roman Catholic historical theologian, reflecting about an historical-critical interpretation of Sacred Scripture, I have often thought about the positive actions of an earlier Pope Leo.

Leo XIII, pope from 1878 to 1903, was a welcomed breath of fresh air after his arch conservative predecessor Pius IX who was pope from 1846 to 1878.

In 1892 Pope Leo XIII authorized the École Biblique in Jerusalem, the first Catholic school specifically dedicated to the critical study of the Bible. Then in 1893, with his encyclical Providentissimus Deus, Pope Leo gave the first formal authorization for the use of historical-critical methods in biblical scholarship. He warned about the dangers of rationalism but clearly endorsed the historical-critical method is a way of studying texts, by examining their historical origins, context, and development.

In 1902, Pope Leo XIII instituted the Pontifical Biblical Commission to reshape and adapt Roman Catholic biblical studies to modern scholarship.

The last major Catholic biblical turning point came with the Second Vatican Council’s dogmatic constitution Dei Verbum (“Word of God”), promulgated by Pope Paul VI in 1965. Paul VI was pope from 1963 to 1978. Dei Verbum supports the use of historical-critical methods in biblical interpretation. It acknowledges the importance of understanding the historical context, literary forms, and the original author’s intent when studying the Scriptures.

And so, we study, we learn, and we grow.

After last week’s post about authoritarians and authoritarian followers, my thoughts this week focus on civility. Authoritarian leaders have never been known for their civility, because they abandon respectful communication and behavior towards individuals and groups. Their lack of civility opens the doors for extreme polarization and the normalization of cruelty, corruption, and mass disinformation.

As polarization increases and trust in democratic institutions declines, the big question is how people can move forward and maintain a functioning democracy. My point today is that civility is essential. Civility refers to social interactions in which participants maintain respect for one another, and demonstrate respectful behavior toward one another, even when they disagree. Behaving with civility reduces the likelihood of misunderstandings, stereotyping, and conflict. But racism and bigotry are nourished by incivility.

When he was sixteen years old, George Washington (1732-1799), who became the first president of the United States in 1789, wrote down 110 “Rules of Civility & Decent Behavior in Company and Conversation.” His writing project was an exercise in youthful penmanship, as he copied an English translation of an older text, originally written by French Jesuits. The focus of Washington’s text was civility: polite, reasonable, and respectful behavior. Historians and biographers recognize the influence of these rules in shaping Washington’s character. For Washington, the “Rules of Civility” provided a presidential framework. Throughout his presidency of eight years, Washington demonstrated genuine courtesy, kindness, and consideration in his actions, which solidified his image as a virtuous leader.

A few of Washington’s rules struck me recently, as I was thinking about current events.

• “Every action done in company ought to be with some sign of respect to those present.”
• “When you reprove another be without blame yourself.”
• “Let your conversation be without malice or envy.”
• “In all causes of passion allow reason to govern.”

Incivility takes form in rude and discourteous actions, in disparaging emails, in spreading rumors, or simply in refusing to assist another person.

Civility means much more than simple politeness. Civility is about interpersonal respect and seeking common ground as a starting point for dialogue about differences. It is about moving beyond preconceptions and listening to the other and encouraging others to do the same.

Civility is hard work because it means staying present to people with whom one can have deep-rooted and fierce disagreements. Civility means collaborating for the common good. It is about negotiating interpersonal conversations in such a way that everyone’s voice is heard, and nobody’s voice is ignored. Not always easy. Civility means that despite different personal perspectives we still have a larger shared vision and we must collaborate to make it a reality. I have always seen this as the main point of the Parable of the Compassionate Samaritan, in Mark 12:31, where Jesus says: “Love your neighbor as yourself.” THAT is civility.

When civility is replaced by mockery, dishonest accusations, and abusive slogans, people become monsters. History shows amply that monsters often create more monsters. History also reminds us that such a scenario never has a happy ending.

The reflection this week is brief. But the task awaiting us is a long process.

 

Civility begins with you and me, with family and friends, with neighbors and colleagues. We gradually construct what I like to call coalitions of transformation: communities of faith, hope, and support. In her 1964 book, Continuities in Cultural Evolution, the famous cultural anthropologist, Margaret Meade (1901 – 1978), said: “Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.”

 

 

Authoritarianism has always bothered me because it uses and abuses people. It destroys human freedom to think, act, and live. It manipulates people and often destroys the “undesirables.” The historical Jesus stressed that human greatness is based on compassion and service. His authority was used only to motivate and guide people, and to heal, support, and call to conversion.

Today, authoritarianism is a dangerous virus. “Leaders” who should be trusted for trustworthiness, intelligence, and humanitarian service are becoming hard-nosed autocrats, surrendering to the psychological and mental disorder of authoritarianism. Honesty and integrity are being replaced by self-promoting deceit and dishonesty.

Historically, authoritarian leaders, in church and in civil society, have always found religion a wonderful convenience, which they misused and manipulated to their advantage. Some even published and promoted their own editions of the Bible. Their misuse of religion enabled them to lord it over other people and allowed them to punish their “enemies” guilt-free.

Distorted religion enables authoritarian leaders to bully and denigrate certain groups, like immigrants and LGBTQ people. Values like love, mercy, and compassion disappear. There are only two authoritarian values: faithfulness and obedience to the authoritarian leader.

Right now, I am thinking about three classic historical examples: (1) The atheist and anti-clerical Benito Mussolini (1883-1945) needed backing by the Vatican to promote his National Fascist Party. He therefore married in the Catholic church and had his children baptized. (2) Spain’s Generalissimo Franco (1892-1975) became a cruel and murderous dictator. Although Franco himself was known for not being very devout, he portrayed himself as a fervent Catholic and used religion to increase his power. He used his Guerrilleros de Christo Rey (the Warriors of Christ the King) to implement his policy of torture and executions. (3) And of course, the story of Adolf Hitler (1889-1945). Hitler ceased being a Catholic when a teenager, but Hitler and his Nazi party promoted their brand of “Positive Christianity.” He described Jesus as an “Aryan fighter” who struggled against the corrupt Pharisees. Joseph Goebbels (1897-1945), Hitler’s Reich Minister of Propaganda and one of his closest and most devoted associates, wrote in April 1941 that although Hitler was “a fierce opponent” of the Vatican and Christianity, “he forbids me to leave the church, for tactical reasons.”

 

The rise of authoritarianism is a problem around the world. Here are the major symptoms:

1. Ongoing efforts to misuse the media. The distinction between information and misinformation disappears. AI-generated photos and videos are presented as honest information.

2.For authoritarians, truth is called “fake news” while what is actually fake news is announced as real news. As George Orwell (1903-1950) predicted years ago: “War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.”

3. Authoritarians impose police surveillance and violence against ideological “enemies”and say they as necessary for public safety.

4. “Immigrants” are arrested. Their families are torn apart, and even their children are incarcerated without explanation. The extreme development of this is genocide.

5. White supremacism, sexism, homophobia, and far-right extremism are not criticized but strongly promoted.

Authoritarian “leaders” can only succeed because because authoritarian followers applaud and support them. Much more so than the average person, authoritarian followers go through life with impaired thinking. Their reasoning is often sloppy and based on prejudiced beliefs and a fierce dogmatism, that rejects evidence and logic. These cognitive defects in authoritarian followers enable them to follow any would-be dictator. As Hitler reportedly said, “What good fortune for those in power that people do not think.”

So, what does one do?

Well, we must first of all acknowledge that authoritarian followers are extremely resistant to change. The more one learns about authoritarianism, the more one realizes how difficult it will be to reach people who are so ferociously aggressive and fiercely defensive. Polarization is now extreme and deeply rooted.

We need to educate and promote, starting at home, a balanced education which is: handing on authentic information, teaching people where to find correct information, and giving people the skills to be well-informed critical thinkers.

Our Christian communities, more than ever, must become, in the Spirit of Christ, compassionate and supportive gatherings of multicultural, multi-ethnic, and all-gender, brothers and sisters.

We need to courageously speak out. And we need to help other people courageously speak out. If something is wrong or not true, people need to strongly and clearly state that it is wrong or untrue. Those who courageously speak out need the strong support of friends gathered around them. Going alone is increasingly difficult if not impossible in our cyber-linked world.

We need to be on guard, as well, that we do not become promoters of polarization and vicious partisanship. We need to learn how to work together for the common good, as Jesus says in Matthew 12:25: “Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation, and every city or house divided against itself will not stand.”

 

 

 

 

One of my friends sent me a note saying he hoped I was not becoming a prophet of doom. That is why I call this week’s reflection “The Tenacity of Hope.” I am not a prophet of doom, and my faith and my knowledge of history give me hope and encouragement. Big problems confront us today. But, if people work together in pursuit of Truth and Moral integrity, these problems can be resolved. For some problems, however, like contemporary authoritarianism, I fear it will take some time. Authoritarianism is a dangerous socio-political virus. It restricts civil liberties, undermines democratic institutions, and uses political repression to maintain control.

Thinking about the tenacity of hope, one’s life perspective is important. My first lessons about the tenacity of hope came from my father’s life events. His father, Alonzo William Dick, was a schoolteacher in Indiana. But he died in 1919 during the great influenza epidemic of 1918-1920. Three of his five sons were too sick to attend his funeral. After his death, the local town authorities in Montpelier, Indiana, wanted to put the five boys in foster-care homes. My grandmother, Mary Ellen Dick, said absolutely not. She had a big challenge in front of her, but she said they were her sons and she would care for them. Fortunately, there were neighbors and family members who encouraged and helped her. It was not always easy, but, on her own, she raised the five boys. They all became wonderfully mature, successful, wise, and kind adults. Their mother had often reminded them – and often reminded me as I was growing up – that “bad things do happen, but we cannot allow them to destroy us.”

Yes, my perspective and optimistic vision are historically based. I look at what happened in the past, what is happening today, and what can happen tomorrow. These days, I also find my current Belgian environment and its history helpful when reflecting about tragedies and the tenacity of hope. Although I was born and grew up in SW Michigan, I now live in Leuven, Belgium. Many years ago, I came here to complete a doctorate, at the Catholic University of Leuven. Two days after my doctoral defense, I was offered a job and have been here ever since. But I am still very much a U.S. American.

Historical reminders are all around us. Our house is close to the Norbertine Park Abbey in Leuven, begun in 1129. In the early sixteenth century, Desiderius Erasmus (1466-1536) lived there for a while, working on his translation of New Testament texts. In the later sixteenth century, however, Park Abbey was occupied by soldiers of the brutal Spanish Duke of Alba (1507-1582). Alba, known as the “Iron Duke” was fiercely anti-protestant and strongly supported by Pope Pius V (1566-1572). Alba was governor of the Spanish Netherlands, which included our part of today’s Belgium, from 1567 to 1573. During those six years, Alba executed more than a thousand people. Not far from our house, Alba’s soldiers had what was called their hanging tree. They used it to frighten citizens of Leuven by executing prominent people suspected of Calvinist sympathies. Nevertheless, Leuven not only survived Alba’s terrorism but flourished, because enough people maintained courage and hope. The area of the long-gone hanging tree – unknown to most contemporary people – is a peaceful area today. Life is stronger than death.

Close to 350 years after the terrorism of the “Iron Duke,” Leuven suffered again in World War I. Starting on August 25, 1914, and over the course of five days, enemy troops burned and looted much of the city and executed hundreds of civilians. Our world-renowned university library with its magnificent collection of ancient manuscripts was burned. This provoked great national and international outrage. Nevertheless, people did not give up, and Leuven was rebuilt. And, starting in 1921, thanks to countless American fundraisers and the personal efforts of Herbert Hoover (1874-1964), chairperson of the Commission for Relief of Belgium, a new library could be built. Then, just about 30 years later, the city was bombed in World War II. Great devastation. Again, people picked up, rebuilt, and moved forward. The tenacity of hope.

Hopeful people pick up and move forward. I am a critic, not a prophet of doom, but I must also acknowledge that I do find it very easy to just point my fingers at and write articles about problematic and negative people. I get annoyed and frustrated. But I know we need to work against polarization, and I do try to reach out to the problematic and negative. It is not easy. I have lost a lot of Facebook friends in the process. From the Apostle Paul, I know that “Love is patient. Love is kind. Love is not envious or boastful or arrogant or rude. It does not insist on its own way. It is not irritable or resentful” (1 Cor. 13:4–5). And I know as well that, in my dealings with negative and often obnoxious people, I do need to be humbly alert to the exhortation of Jesus in Matthew 7 and Luke 6: “Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?”

Thinking about strengthening our own tenacity of hope, we greatly need to learn from the example of hope-filled men and women. My old friend Archbishop Jadot, the subject of my previous book Jean Jadot, Paul’s Man in Washington, was for me a supportive teacher. I remember complaining to him about problems in the church and my frustrations with one prominent U.S. archbishop who had tried very hard, but without success, to get me fired from the Catholic University of Leuven. Jadot looked at me, put his hand on my shoulder, and said: “Yes, it is winter now. But spring will return.” We all need people like Jean Jadot in our lives, and we are all called to be prophets of hope and hopeful change. We need to critically examine our own perspectives, however, because they can make us either open or closed.

Right now, I am collecting materials for one of my adult discussion groups that will meet again in the autumn. We will read and discuss articles written by the the 91 years old English anthropologist Jane Goodall. She is a wonderfully prophetic and inspiring person.

In her 1999 book written with Phillip Berman, Reason for Hope, she details her spiritual epiphany and her belief that everyone can find a reason for hope. “Each one of us matters, has a role to play, and makes a difference,” Goodall writes. “It is these undeniable qualities of human love and compassion and self-sacrifice that give me hope for the future. We are, indeed, often cruel and evil. Nobody can deny this. We gang up on each one another, we torture each other, with words as well as deeds, we fight, we kill. But we are also capable of the most noble, generous, and heroic behavior.”

The tenacity of hope. With constructive criticism and collaborative efforts, we can indeed be noble, generous, and heroic in pursuit of truth and moral integrity in church and in civil society.

• Jack

 

This week, thinking about contemporary “Christian” nationalism and “Christian” leaders, I offer a brief historical reflection about Christianity and civil authority.

In the old Roman Republic (c. 509 – 27 BCE), the Pontifex Maximus was the high priest in the state religion. The word pontifex is derived from the Latin words pons (bridge) and facere (to make), literally meaning “bridge-builder.” This title was associated with the chief priest, the Pontifex Maximus: the great bridge builder between the Roman gods and humans.

After the establishment of the Roman Empire, Julius Caesar (100 BCE – 44 BCE) became Emperor and Pontifex Maximus in 63 BCE, making him the “chief high priest” of the Roman state religion. But when Constantine the Great (c. 280 – 337 CE) became the first “Christian” Roman Emperor, in the fourth century CE, the official religion of the Roman Empire began to shift toward Christianity. Constantine called and supervised the First Council of Nicaea in 325, attended by at least 200 bishops. This council was the first of many efforts to reach a consensus in Christian leadership through an assembly standing for all Christendom.

Constantine used Christianity and Christian bishops in his imperial exercise of power but was only baptized on his deathbed in May 337. Today he is still venerated as a saint in Eastern Christianity; but whether Constantine was a “genuine” Christian is a matter of ongoing debate among historians and scholars. While Constantine favored Christianity and played a pivotal role in its rise to prominence in the Roman Empire, his actions and beliefs were complex and not always aligned with traditional Christian belief.

The fourth century, in any case, brought a major change in thinking about Christianity and civil power. The century began with the Roman Pontifex Maximus Galerius, Emperor from 305 – 311, torturing and murdering Christians to please and placate the Roman gods. It ended with Gratian, Emperor from 367 to 383, giving the Bishop of Rome the title Pontifex Maximus in 360 and Theodosius, Emperor from 379 to 395 issuing the Edict of Thessalonica in 380 which established Christianity as the official Roman imperial state religion. Then Christians began torturing and murdering non-Christians to please and placate God by destroying people they considered God’s enemies.

In the fifth century, when the Western Roman Empire collapsed in 476, all civil power and authority moved into papal hands and the popes began to dress and behave like Roman Emperors. Institutional Christianity became a militant religion.

 A high point for Papal Pontifex Maximus power would come with the Crusades, the series of religious wars from the eleventh to thirteenth centuries, started, supported, and at times directed by the Pontifex Maximus Pope in Rome.

The last pope to use the title Pontifex Maximus was Pope Benedict XVI, pope from 2005 until his resignation in 2013. Benedict replicated, red shoes and all, the old Roman imperial style and authority in grand style. Benedict was a conservative authoritarian.

Pope Francis, who was pope from 2013 until his death in 2025, greatly downplayed the papal imperial pageantry so greatly loved by Benedict and his illustrious predecessors. And now we wait and see what Pope Leo XIV will do.

Authentic Christianity, however, is not about power and authority OVER people. God is love and Christianity is about reaching out to people, offering forgiveness, calling to growth and conversion. We show our love for God by loving the people around us. Jesus was hardly a power-crazed manipulator of men and women. He did not exercise power over people but empowered people to take responsibility for their lives and those around them.

Questions about Christianity and power and authority, are certainly very much with us today, especially in America, because contemporary “Christian” nationalists seek an America where only a small group of white, ultra-wealthy “Christians” get to enjoy the freedom, civil rights, and safety that everyone deserves.

More about this in a future post…

******

I conclude this week’s reflection with an announcement about my new book.

This is an announcement and not a sales pitch.

 

This book is titled Another Voice: Contemporary Theological & Ethical Reflections. That title comes from T. S. Eliot (1888-1965) whose words in his poem “Little Gidding” capture for me the focus of historical theology: “For last year’s words belong to last year’s language. And next year’s words await another voice.”

As my theological mentor Edward Schillebeeckx so often stressed theological development arises from a critical translation of Christian experience from one historical era to the next.

My blog Another Voice was the inspiration for my new book, which is available as an ebook or a paperback from Amazon.

• Jack