An Advent Reflection and a Word that Begins with “F”

In beginning this essay, I would like the readers to know that I’ll be addressing the “f” word that is so integral to this season. Some readers might be shocked by this introduction and what they have concluded about a word that begins with the letter "f." I have a suspicion that this introductory remark has triggered an arousal of curiosity. Why? Most likely because the reader’s attention would likely be fixed on the letter that appears in quotation marks. What, in God’s name could Araujo be up to by juxtaposing the holy season we now celebrate with that word. A bit more explanation is most assuredly in order.

The word some readers may have in mind connotes to many something harsh, vulgar, or profane. This reaction is largely a function of the culture in which we live. So, if the culture influences one’s thinking, it would seem that my reference is to this coarse word. But, what if I really had another word in mind—as I do in this case—and that word is: fidelity? Clearly, the reaction ought to be different. Catholics, in the exercise of their fidelity, are called to evangelize the culture; however, often the opposite is the case. Over the recent past there have been a number of MOJ postings on the issue of sexual orientation within the context of marriage. Michael P’s article that he just kindly posted examines several important dimensions of this issue in a Constitutional context. Earlier this year, attention was drawn to the Theological Studies articles by Stephen Pope, on the one hand, and by Todd Salzman and Michael Lawler, on the other. The latter two authors present a theory of “reconstructed complementarity” in their analysis and apparent critique of the Church’s teachings. Of course, it may well be that Professors Salzman and Lawler, in addition to Professor Pope, are faithful to the Church’s teachings about marriage. And their arguments, to the contrary, may well be intended to provoke discussion and a counter-critique to the views of those advocates and scholars who do believe that same sex unions are permissible under the law—both the Church’s and civil society’s. In short, it could well be that these three authors, in fact, remain faithful to the Church’s teachings that marriage is an exclusive union between one man and one woman but they wish to engage the arguments of those with different views on the matter. In the meantime, I wonder what advocates for same sex unions/marriages, who now principally advance their positions from arguments of equality (and equal protection of the law) and autonomy/self-determination (Planned Parenthood v. Casey) will say—if anything—to those who rely on their arguments as they contend for the right to marriage with multiple partners or something else. Are they not entitled to equality and autonomy, too?

Fidelity to the views of the Church is something to which I adhere out of an exercise of my free will. I have been critiqued before for this fidelity, and I suspect that I will be in the future—perhaps sooner than I would like. But faithful I shall strive to remain to what the Church teaches in a clear and thoughtful manner. I pray to be more like Mary, a prominent figure in the Church’s Advent celebration, who said, “I am the servant of the Lord…” Like others, we have been called to reform the culture as servants of the Lord; in contrast, we have not been asked by Him to be reformed by it. Fidelity, as Mary demonstrated, is a wonderful and extraordinary calling: fidelity to noble purposes; fidelity to the law that is just in the eyes of God; fidelity to one’s spouse and one’s family; fidelity to the Church; and, fidelity to God. I am aware that I may be critiqued by others who would argue that my position is a fundamentalist one. I am particularly conscious of the possibility of critique after recently watching some of the web archived discussions of the “Beyond Belief” symposia that took place last month. One commentator, Sam Harris, had this to say about religion and religious believers and their influence on society:

“The problem is not that religious people are stupid; it’s not that religious fundamentalists are stupid. You can be so well educated that you can build a nuclear bomb and still believe that you can get 72 virgins in paradise. The problem is that religion, because it has been sheltered from criticism in the ways that it has been, allows perfectly sane, perfectly intelligent people to believe, en masse, things that only idiots or lunatics could believe in isolation. If you wake up tomorrow morning convinced that saying a few Latin words over your breakfast cereal is literally going to turn it into the body of Julius Caesar, or Elvis, you have lost your mind. [Laughter from the audience is heard] But if you believe that a cracker becomes the body of Jesus at the mass, you’re very likely to be perfectly sane; you just happen to be Catholic.  But the beliefs really are equivalent, and they’re equivalently crazy. We do not respect stupidity in this country, but we systematically respect religious stupidity.”

In spite of this blistering criticism directed toward them by influential members of society who possess and exercise a powerful authority over its culture, many of the faithful labor to preserve their fidelity to God and His Church. I pray to remain in this latter group’s company and have made this a part of my ongoing Advent reflection and supplication.   RJA sj