"The faith is the legacy of the Apostles"
Paul VI and the proclamation of the Year of the Faith in 1967, marking the 1,900th anniversary of the martyrdom of Peter and Paul in Rome, a decisive year that would close with the Creed of the People of God to "attest to our unshakable proposition of fidelity to the Deposit of faith". "We cannot ignore in the least that our times strongly demand this"
by Gianni Valente ("30 Days")
There are moments, Charles Péguy writes, when all the masks fall so that nothing more is left to hide reality, which appears bare to us, as it really is. "They are the only moments in life when one does not lie; when one does not pretend in the least; when one is sincere; literally, absolutely, totally sincere; when one sees the truth, more than the truth, the reality, as it is; when nothing is hidden any more". These are the moments when "we see clearly, we dare to see clearly".
Exactly 30 years ago, it happened that Paul VI experienced just such a moment. He looked upon the Church which, as his first encyclical testified, was well aware that it was of an Other, that is, of Christ (Ecclesiam suam). He looked through all the good intuitions, the ingenuous expectations, the illusions and the idle talk overwhelming it at the time, and he saw. He saw the death of Christendom, not of the structures, the meetings, the Vatican, the pastoral plans, the oceanic rallies that would probably continue, exercises in choreography for those seeking an ecclesiastical role to play and religious consolation to fill their lives (and perhaps make a career of it).
What he saw burning itself out was the faith, our times like one long Holy Saturday, when God was absent, when even the last disciples set out sad and dull of heart, each on their own road home.
Paul VI saw all of this and, as the tragedy besetting the Church unfolded, he kept up the reminders, he kept repeating the list of the only true treasures: the faith of the apostles, safeguarded by Tradition (Creed of the People of God), and the poor, the peoples in hunger (Populorum progressio), the first to be called to enjoy the grace of the faith. Reiterate the eternal things - that's all a Pope can and should do.
It was February 22, 1967 when, with his apostolic exhortation Petrum et Paulum apostolos, Paul VI convened a special jubilee year - the Year of the Faith. A thousand nine hundred years after the two apostles Peter and Paul had been martyred in Rome, killed "out of jealousy and envy", or even out of Christian badness, as we are reminded in one passage of a letter to the Corinthians from Pope Saint Clement that was reproduced at the beginning of this apostolic exhortation. On that anniversary, the Pope was asking, the whole Church was called to store up the memory of the faith transmitted in legacy by the two apostles, humbly asking for the ability to make the reality of that faith their own living experience, to be able to encounter, happen upon the actions of that same Presence that 2,000 years ago had attracted the gaze of poor fishermen and great sinners, moving their hearts.
That year - and even the most attentive historiographers recognize this today - was a watermark, a "turning point" in the Montinian Pontificate. At the close of the Year of the Faith, Paul VI from Saint Peter's Square proclaimed a solemn profession of faith, Creed of the People of God, designed to "attest to our unshakable proposition of fidelity to the Deposit of faith". But the Catholics of the day did not grasp Paul VI's prophetic intuition of tragedy to come. The enlightened among them described it as over-pessimistic. For the reactionaries, it was regret come late considering that they saw the catastrophe as having been triggered by the Conciliar renewal which Montini had piloted. For the clergy of all currents, simply re-proposing the traditional contents of the Catholic faith was too minimal a response in the face of history's provocations and the crisis in the Church itself. They felt a more complex strategy was needed: awareness-building, or a campaign to render the faith culture. This would help in dialogue and in adapting to the world, one side was saying. It would help in resisting the siege of modernity and in combat, the others were saying. Thus the Year of the Faith and the Creed of the People of God were swallowed up in a chasm of silence.
Inimici hominis, domestici eius
What disturbed Pope Paul VI most was not so much the world's immorality or the theoretical negation of Christianity at that time of shamelessness and violence.
For, even before 1967 another type of alarm was being sounded in Paul VI's discourses: the Church was being demolished not by modern atheism but by its own sons. It was an inner sickness, a cupio dissolvi that seemed to have poisoned the teachers, the clergy and the ecclesiastical academies even before it touched the people. And it was urging them to empty, from the inside, the nature and method of the Christian fact. "The words of Jesus come to the lips: 'inimici hominis, domestici eius', man's enemies are in his own house!", the Pope was to say on September 18, 1968 just three months after proclaiming the Creed. Even earlier, in 1965, the Pope told a general audience on August 4 that year that he was concerned about "the voices coming from even the best circles of the people of God where the doctrine of the Church is ordinarily nourished by a fervor of study, where it is cultivated with strength of mind". These voices were now echoing "errors old and new, rectified and condemned by the Church in the past and excluded from the patrimony of its truths". In an address on July 11, 1966 to a group of theologians and scientists meeting to discuss a new presentation of the dogma of original sin, Paul VI warns against agreeing to formulations of original sin subordinate to the theory of evolution. But it was at the general audience on November 30 that year that Paul VI, describing "the sad phenomenon which is disturbing Conciliar renewal and disconcerting ecumenical dialogue", specified in great detail the essentials of Christianity that some were striving to strip away: "The resurrection of Christ, the reality of his true presence in the Eucharist and also the virginity of Our Lady and, consequently, the august mystery of the incarnation". In October 1966, the new Dutch Catechism was published on the orders of the national Episcopate. It was a prototype of the post-Conciliar catechisms which believed they were making Christianity more interesting for the modern man by replacing the traditional formulas of faith with complicated and, in parts, ambiguous and reticient discourses. Speaking on April 7 the next year to the Italian bishops' assembly, Paul VI reiterated what the priority must be: "The first question, the capital question is that of the faith which we bishops must consider in all its incumbent gravity. Something very strange and painful is happening ... even as regards those who know and study the word of God: there is less certainty about its objective truth and the capacity of the human mind to grasp it; the sense of the one, authentic faith is being altered; more radical aggression in regard to the sacrosanct truths of our doctrine, ever the belief and profession of the people, are allowed ...".
The Tradition that pre-empts us
The source of greatest anguish for Paul VI was that, in this exercise in self-demolition, the last Ecumenical Council was being instrumentalized, interpreted as the birth of a new Christianity and a new Church. In an address on December 8, 1966 exactly a year after closing the Council, Montini denounced the error in supposing that Vatican II "represents a breach with the doctrinal and disciplinary tradition that went before". At the general audience about a month earlier, he had invited people not to be tempted to think "that innovations, derived from doctrines and Conciliar decrees, authorize any arbitrary change ... There must be the profound conviction that the Church of the past cannot be demolished to build a new one now; we cannot forget and impugn what the Church has taught to date with authority and replace sure doctrine with new theories and concepts". On January 12, 1966 he said: "The teachings of the Council do not constitute an organic system of Catholic doctrine" which "is much wider ... and it is not being questioned by the Council or changed in substance; indeed, the Council confirms it, illustrates it, defends it and develops it with the highest authoritative apologia ... Whoever thinks, then, that the Council represents a rift, a breach or, as some believe, a liberation from the Church's traditional teaching, is mistaken".
The Faith, Adherence to a Testimony
On seeing these things, Paul VI is only too well aware that it is not enough to repel the doctrinal errors being slipped into the Catholic leadership. The doctrinal confusion was the symptom of something more radical. It seemed, almost, that everywhere in the Church the whole perception of Christianity was being lost, the whole nature and dynamic of the Christian life. People no longer knew what Christianity was.
The Pope decides to take advantage of the anniversary of the martyrdom of the Saint Apostles Peter and Paul to call the Year of the Faith as an answer to this dizzying mindlessness that came when the Council had reached boiling point.
The apostolic exhortation Petrum et Paulum apostolos convening the Year of the Faith makes only brief secondary mention of the doctrinal crisis. The only simple and minimal request directed at all the sons of the Church is to repeat the profession of faith of the apostles Peter and Paul, to keep within that faith.
"We would also like to ask one small, though important thing: We wish to beg all of you, Our brothers and Our sons, individually to remember the Saint Apostles Peter and Paul who bore witness to the faith of Christ with their words and their blood, so that you may profess truthfully and sincerely the same faith that the Church, founded and made splendid by these persons, assumed devotedly and expounded with authority. However, this profession of faith which, with the blessed Apostles as witnesses, we render to God, should certainly be individual and public, free and conscious, interior and exterior, humble and decisive. We would also like this profession of faith to come from the innermost heart of every man, and that its echo throughout the Church be one, identical and overflowing with love. In fact, what more grateful service of memory, of honor, of communion could we offer Peter and Paul if not the declaration of the same faith we received from them in legacy?". The repetition of formulas that safeguard the apostolic faith was not only the devotional answer but was, for Paul VI, an act truly fitting for that moment in time in the life of the Church: "We cannot ignore in the least that our times strongly demand this".
Numerous discourses of the time would clarify and discuss the reasons behind the
Year of the Faith of Peter and Paul. At the March 1, 1967 audience a few days after the publication of the apostolic exhortaton, Paul VI explains: "It seems to Us that this theme is a surer, more direct way to spiritual communication with these great Apostles: they themselves left this pressing recommendation; Saint Peter says, for example, in his first letter to the first Christians that they are 'custodians in the faith for salvation'," and Saint Paul, too, "is anxious to guarantee the integrity and conservaton of the faith and he repeats his recommendations so that every error may be avoided and rejected and so that the 'deposit be safeguarded' ... By adhering to the faith that the Church proposes to us, we place ourselves in direct communication with the apostles we wish to remember; and, through them, with Jesus Christ, our first and only Teacher; we place ourselves in their school, we annul the distance of the centuries separating us from them and we render the present time a living history, the history proper of the Church which is ever the same". The faith, Pope Paul VI goes on to specify in the same discourse recurring to the Council of Trent definition, " 'humanae salutis initium est', is the beginning of man's salvation".
At the audience on the following April 19, the Pope again dwelled on clarifying the Christian faith, distinguishing it from the commonly held "religious sentiment, vague and generic belief in the existence of God". The faith, said Paul VI, is "the adherence of the spirit, mind and will to a truth" justified "by the transcendant authority of a testimony, to which it is not only reasonable to adhere but intimately logical because of its strange and vital persuasive force making the act of faith extremely personal and satisfying". The faith, then, is "a virtue with its roots in human psychology but which draws its validity from a mysterious, supernatural action of the Holy Spirit, of the grace infused in us, in the normal way, by baptism". It is "that spiritual capacity allowing us to receive the truths - because they correspond to reality - that the word of God has revealed to us. The faith, therefore, is an act founded on the credence we give the living God".
The official inauguration of the Year of the Faith was solemnly celebrated at the parvis of the Vatican Basilica on the evening of June 29 1967, Feast of Saints Peter and Paul. In his homily, the Holy Father reiterates that "the recently celebrated Ecumenical Council exhorted us to go back to the sources of the Church and to recognize in the faith its constituent principle, the primary condition for all of its growth, the basis of its interior certainty and the force of its exterior vitality". A few days later, pilgrims at the July 5 audience heard the Pope return to the question of the faith: "The faith is the Apostles' legacy. It is the gift of their apostolate, of their charity ... They, together with the other apostles and with the authorized bringers of the Gospel, are the intermediaries between us and Christ - this is the essential character of Christianity generating a system of indispensable relationships within the community of believers ... The Apostle is the master; he is not just the echo of the community's religious conscience; not just the expression of the faithful people's opinion, the voice, it might be said, that specified it and legalized it as the modernists would have said and as some theologians dare say still today. The voice of the Apostle is the generator of the faith ... The religious truth, coming from Christ, is not spread among men in an uncontrolled, irresponsible way but needs an exterior, social channel".
The East of the Great Councils
The Pope's visit to Turkey on July 25 and 26 that year was another step in the footprint of apostolic memory, as the year of the faith had intended. The Pope travelled the itineraries Paul followed on his preaching missions "founding the first Christian communities in the midst of sometimes dramatic circumstances, as related in the Acts of the Apostles", Paul VI said in the Church of Saint John at Ephesus. But the point of the trip was to go back to the places where the first great Councils had been celebrated and which had defined and safeguarded the apostolic faith, defending Christianity from the heresies of old. Back in Rome the Pope at the August 2 Angelus commemorated the pre-eminence of the first four Ecumenical Councils held in the East (Nicaea, Constantinople, Ephesus and Chalcedon). Indirectly, he was down-sizing the portent of the last Ecumenical Council which some groups thought should have been commemorated as Year 1 of the Church. "These four Councils", the Pope said, "were and remain worthy of great reverence. It was these four which, after the first centuries of persecution and all but clandestine life, gave the Church its consciousness of its constitutional and unitary framework.
It was they which authoritatively highlighted and established the fundamental dogmas of our faith, on the Holy Trinity, on Jesus Christ, on the Virgin Mary: and which, therefore, gave Christianity its basic doctrine". This act of veneration in regard to the first four Ecumenical Councils was also an opportunity to reiterate the communion of faith with Orthodoxy on fundamental dogmas. Paul VI, the pope who had cancelled the reciprocal excommunications of Rome and Constantinople and who would later stoop to kiss the feet of the Orthodox bishop Melitone of Chalcedon, took advantage during his visit to Turkey of his meetings with the Patriarch Athenagoras and with other Orthodox of Ephesus to emphasize that "to re-establish and conserve communion and unity, we must be careful 'to impose nothing but what is necessary'." He told Athenagoras and the Ecumenical Patriarchy's metropolitans in the Cathedral of Saint George: "Charity must help us as it helped Hilary and Athanasius to recognize the identity of the faith over and above the differences in vocabulary at a time when serious breaches were dividing the episcopate ... And did not Saint Cyril of Alexandria agree to set aside his theology, beautiful as it was, to make peace with John of Antioch when he ascertained that, independently of the different phraseology, their faith was one and the same?".
The Human and Material
eferences to the Memory
At the close of the Year of the Faith, Paul VI scandalized clergy with two surprise gestures. In an allocution in the Vatican Basilica on June 26, 1968 he announced the authenticity of Saint Peter's relics uncovered in excavations in the Vatican grottoes between 1940 and 1950. "We are supported in this intensity of feeling and bound by the historical traces left here by them. These human and material references to the memory of the Apostles, 'per quos religionis sumpsit exordium', by whose merit our religious life was born, cannot be overlooked by us Romans or by all those who walk in Rome", Pope Paul VI said. The findings of the research into the bone fragments uncovered in the Vatican necropolis were announced with restrained enthusiasm: "New inquiries were later conducted with great patience and accuracy, that We, comforted by the judgement of valued and prudent experts, believe positive: St. Peter's relics were also identified in a way that may be considered convincing and We praise all those who devoted the closest of study and great and protracted effort".
On June 30, 1968 the Year of the Faith was closed with solemn liturgy and with the profession of faith which Paul VI himself called Creed of the People of God. It was the crowning act of the Year of the Faith "which we dedicated", Paul VI said in his homily, "to the commemoration of the Apostle Saints to attest to our unshakable proposition of fidelity to the Deposit of faith that they transmitted to us and to strengthen our desire to make it the substance of our lives at this particular time in the history of the Church on its pilgrimage in the world". With this profession, Paul VI's intention was to fulfill his mandate, "entrusted by Christ to Peter, whose successor We are however last in terms of merit, to confirm Our brothers in the faith. The new Creed, without being a dogmatic definition proper, substantially reproduces the Nicaean Creed with a few developments as required by the spiritual conditions of our time". In professing the Creed of the People of God, Paul VI declares his mindfulness of "the disquiet in some modern spheres" and "the passion" of many Catholics "for change and things new ... the maximum care must be taken not to detract from the teachings of Christian doctrine. For, that would mean - as it so often does these days, unfortunately - causing general disturbance and perplexity to many faithful souls".
A Great Pope at a Difficult Time
As Carlo Falconi, Italy's leading Vatican commentator at the time, wrote in his book La svolta di Paolo VI (Paul VI's Turning Point), "the vast gorge of silence which swallowed the proclamation of the new Creed is dramatically menacing. The entire press campaign by the Vatican's own daily with the pretence of echoing moved consensus and acknowledgement, came to nothing. And if the publication of the encyclical Humanae vitae had not followed soon after provoking the most disparate reaction, the embarrassment caused by that silent protest would have been near intolerable".
The whole Catholic establishment with rare exceptions let the lucid intuition about the Church's condition in the world, as it was expressed by the Year of the Faith and by the Creed of the People of God, fall by the wayside. Theologians and intellectuals dubbed them "pietist gestures". At the beginning of the Year of the Faith, the Dutch theologian Edward Schillebeeckx commented on Paul VI's initiative and said that the crisis besetting the Christian faith was a "crisis of growth". His German colleague Karl Rahner derided the very notion of having "after the year of geophysics, the Year of the Faith" and he concluded: "It all depends on profound reflection with a view to rendering this concept (the Christian one) credible to the contemporary spirit".
Ultimately, they were all telling the Pope that it was not enough for him to point to a return to Tradition, to repeat the doctrine of the apostles and keep to that. The plot of silence that greeted Paul VI during the Year of the Faith and when he proclaimed the Creed of the People of God was an expression of the real root of the misunderstanding, of the mute hostility and of the increasingly frequent contestations of the Pope within the Church.
The idea that the Montinian Pontificate underwent an involution in 1967-1968 dashed initial hopes so widespread within the clerical intelligentsia that halfway through the 1970s, the historian Franco Bolgiani, official relatore at the ecclesial convention on "Evangelization and Human Promotion" referred to it in his address to the chiefs of the Italian Church's general staff.
In his June 29, 1972 homily during the celebration of the Apostle Saints Peter and Paul, Paul VI acknowledged: "We believed that after the Council a day of sunshine would have dawned for the history of the Church. What came was a day of clouds and storms instead, of darkness, of such seeking and uncertainty that it is not easy to impart the joy of communion".
In those days, few dared to bear public witness to their devotion and solidarity towards a pope derided even at ecclesial conventions. One who did dare was the Patriarch of Venice Albino Luciani (the future John Paul I). His homily on September 18, 1977 to the Italian National Eucharistic Congress in Pescara was an impassioned exercise in taking sides, an explicit declaration of communion with the great Pope in those difficult times: "The Peter we heard in the Gospel lives today in the person of Paul VI his successor. But there are two Paul VIs: the one we saw last night in Pescara, the one we see and listen to in the general and private audiences, and the one that certain books and newspapers describe in their own way - inventing and distorting. The first one is the only real one, the authentic one: a great Pope, whose lot has been to fulfill his high mission in difficult times ...".
________________________________________
Tuesday, January 31, 2012
Thursday, January 26, 2012
Lot’s Wife: Turning Back on Self – Empty Pillar of Salt
Benedict XVU: Christmas Greetings to the Roman Curia 12-22 2011.
From this derives a new way of living our humanity, our Christianity. For me, one of the most important experiences of those days was the meeting with the World Youth Day volunteers: about 20,000 young people, all of whom devoted weeks or months of their lives to working on the technical, organizational and material preparations for World Youth Day, and thus made it possible for the whole event to run smoothly. Those who give their time always give a part of their lives. At the end of the day, these young people were visibly and tangibly filled with a great sense of happiness: the time that they gave up had meaning; in giving of their time and labour, they had found time, they had found life. And here something fundamental became clear to me: these young people had given a part of their lives in faith, not because it was asked of them, not in order to attain Heaven, nor in order to escape the danger of Hell. They did not do it in order to find fulfilment. They were not looking round for themselves. There came into my mind the image of Lot’s wife , who by looking round was turned into a pillar of salt. How often the life of Christians is determined by the fact that first and foremost they look out for themselves, they do good, so to speak, for themselves. And how great is the temptation of all people to be concerned primarily for themselves; to look round for themselves and in the process to become inwardly empty, to become "pillars of salt". But here it was not a matter of seeking fulfilment or wanting to live one’s life for oneself. These young people did good, even at a cost, even if it demanded sacrifice, simply because it is a wonderful thing to do good, to be there for others. All it needs is the courage to make the leap. Prior to all of this is the encounter with Jesus Christ, inflaming us with love for God and for others, and freeing us from seeking our own ego.
Remember Lot’s Wife
J. C. Ryle
________________________________________
There are few warnings in Scripture more solemn than this. Our Lord Jesus Christ says to us, "Remember Lot's wife" (Luke 17:32).
Lot's wife professed the true religion. Her husband was a "righteous man" (2 Peter 2:8). She left Sodom with him on the day when Sodom was destroyed. She looked back towards the city from behind her husband, against God's clear command. She was struck dead at once and turned into a pillar of salt. And our Lord Jesus Christ holds her up as a warning to his church. He says, "Remember Lot's wife."
It is a solemn warning, when we think of the person Jesus names. He does not bid us to remember Abraham, or Isaac, or Jacob, or Sarah, or Hannah, or Ruth. No. He singles out one whose soul was lost forever. He cries out to us, "Remember Lot's wife."
It is a solemn warning, when we consider the subject Jesus is addressing. He is speaking of his own second coming to judge the world: he is describing the awful state of unpreparedness in which many will be found. Judgment is on his mind when he says, "Remember Lot's wife."
It is a solemn warning, when we think of the person who gives it. Our Lord Jesus is full of love, mercy, and compassion. He is one who will never break the bruised reed nor quench the smoking flax. He could weep over unbelieving Jerusalem. He could pray for the men who crucified him. Yet even he thinks it good to give this solemn warning and remind us of lost souls. Even he says, "Remember Lot's wife."
It is a solemn warning, when we think of the persons to whom it was first given. Our Lord Jesus was speaking to his disciples. He was not addressing the scribes and Pharisees who hated him, but Peter, James, and John, and many others who loved him. Yet even to them he thinks it good to address a caution. Even to them he says, "Remember Lot's wife."
It is a solemn warning, when we consider the manner in which it was given. He does not merely say, "Beware of following � take heed of imitating � do not be like � Lot's wife." He uses a different word: he says, "Remember." He speaks as if we are each in danger of forgetting the subject. He stirs up our lazy memories. He bids us keep the case before our minds. He cries, "Remember Lot's wife."
Consider the religious privileges which Lot's wife enjoyed. In the days of Abraham and Lot, true saving religion was scarce on the earth. There were no Bibles, no ministers, no churches, no tracts, no missionaries. The knowledge of God was confined to a few favored families. The greater part of the inhabitants of the world were living in darkness, ignorance, superstition, and sin. Not one in a thousand perhaps had such good example, such spiritual society, such clear knowledge, such plain warnings as Lot's wife. Compared with millions of her fellow creatures in her time, Lot's wife was a favored woman.
She had a believer for her husband. She had Abraham, the father of the faithful, for her uncle by marriage. The faith, the knowledge, and the prayers of these two righteous men could have been no secret to her. It is impossible that she could have dwelt in tents with them for any length of time, without knowing whose they were and whom they served. Religion with them was no formality. It was the ruling principle of their lives. It was the mainspring of their actions. Lot's wife must have seen and known all this. This was no small privilege!
When Abraham first received the promises, Lot's wife was probably there. When he built his tent between Ai and Bethel, she was probably there. When the angels came to Sodom and warned her husband to flee, she saw them. When they took them by the hand and led them out of the city, she was one of those whom they helped to escape. Once more, I say, these were no small privileges!
Yet what good effect did all these privileges have on the heart of Lot's wife? None at all. Despite all her opportunities and means of grace--despite all her special warnings and messages from heaven--she lived and died graceless, godless, impenitent, and unbelieving. The eyes of her understanding were never opened. Her conscience was never really aroused and quickened. Her will was never really brought into a state of obedience to God. Her affections were never really set on things above. The form of religion which she had was kept up for the sake of fashion, not from sincerity. It was a coat worn to please her family, but not from any sense of its value. She did as others around her in Lot's house. She conformed to her husband's ways. She did not oppose his religion. She let herself be passively towed along in his wake. But all this time her heart was wrong in the sight of God. The world was in her heart, and her heart was in the world! In this state she lived, and in this state she died.
There is much to be learned in all this. I see a lesson here which is of the utmost importance in the present day. We live in times when there are many people just like Lot's wife. Come and hear the lesson which her case is meant to teach.
Learn, then, that the mere possession of religious privileges will save no one's soul. You may have spiritual advantages of every description. You may live in the full sunshine of the richest opportunities and means of grace. You may enjoy the best of preaching and the choicest instruction. You may dwell in the midst of light, knowledge, holiness, and good company. All this may be, and yet you yourself may remain unconverted, and in the end be lost for ever.
I dare say this doctrine sounds hard to some readers. I know that many fancy that they need nothing but religious privileges in order to become decided Christians. They grant that they are not what they ought to be at present. But their position is so hard, they plead, and their difficulties are so many. If only they had a godly husband, or a godly wife� If only they had godly companions, or a godly master� If only they had better preaching of the gospel� Give them privileges, and then they will walk with God.
It is all a lie. It is an entire delusion. It requires something more than privileges to save souls. Joab was David's captain. Gehazi was Elisha's servant. Demas was Paul's companion. Judas Iscariot was Christ's disciple. And Lot had a worldly, unbelieving wife. These all died in their sins. They went down to the pit in spite of knowledge, warnings, and opportunities. And they all teach us that we need more than privileges alone. We need the sovereign grace of God in Christ Jesus.
Let us value our religious privileges, but let us never pin our hopes entirely upon them. Let us desire to benefit from them in all our movements in life, but let us never put them in the place of Christ. Let us use them thankfully, if God gives them to us, but let us take care that they produce the fruit of faith and repentance in our hearts and lives. If they do not do good, they do positive harm. They sear our consciences. They increase our responsibility. They aggravate our condemnation. The same fire which melts the wax hardens the clay. The same sun which makes the living tree grow, dries up the dead tree and gets it ready for burning. Nothing so hardens the heart of man as a sterile familiarity with sacred things. Again I say, it is not privileges alone which make people Christians; it is the sovereign grace of God in Christ Jesus. Without that, no one can ever be saved.
You who attend a sound ministry--mark well what I am saying. You go to Mr. A's or Mr. B's church. You think him an excellent preacher. You delight in his sermons. You cannot hear anyone else with the same comfort. You have learned many things since you attended his ministry. You consider it a privilege to be one of his hearers. All this is very good. It is a privilege! I would be very thankful if ministers like yours were multiplied a thousandfold. But, after all, what have you got in your heart? Have you yet received the Holy Spirit? If not, you are no better than Lot's wife!
You children of Christian parents--mark well what I am saying. It is the highest privilege to be the child of a godly father and mother. It is the greatest advantage to be brought up in the midst of many prayers. It is a blessed thing indeed to be taught the gospel from our earliest infancy, and to hear of sin, and Jesus, and the Holy Spirit, and holiness, and heaven, from the first moment we can remember anything. But, oh, take heed that you do not remain barren and unfruitful in the sunshine of all these privileges. Beware lest your hearts remain hard, impenitent, and worldly, in spite of the many advantages you enjoy. You cannot enter the kingdom of God on the credit of your parents' faith. You must eat the Bread of Life for yourself. You must have the witness of the Spirit in your own heart. You must have repentance of your own, faith of your own, and sanctification of your own. If not, you are no better than Lot's wife!
I pray God that all professing Christians in these days may lay these things to heart. May we never forget that privileges alone cannot save us. Light and knowledge, faithful preaching, abundant means of grace, and the company of holy people are all great blessings and advantages. Happy are they that have them! But after all, there is one thing without which privileges are useless. That one thing is the sovereign grace of God in Christ Jesus. Lot's wife had many privileges. But Lot's wife did not have God's grace.
Benedict XVU: Christmas Greetings to the Roman Curia 12-22 2011.
From this derives a new way of living our humanity, our Christianity. For me, one of the most important experiences of those days was the meeting with the World Youth Day volunteers: about 20,000 young people, all of whom devoted weeks or months of their lives to working on the technical, organizational and material preparations for World Youth Day, and thus made it possible for the whole event to run smoothly. Those who give their time always give a part of their lives. At the end of the day, these young people were visibly and tangibly filled with a great sense of happiness: the time that they gave up had meaning; in giving of their time and labour, they had found time, they had found life. And here something fundamental became clear to me: these young people had given a part of their lives in faith, not because it was asked of them, not in order to attain Heaven, nor in order to escape the danger of Hell. They did not do it in order to find fulfilment. They were not looking round for themselves. There came into my mind the image of Lot’s wife , who by looking round was turned into a pillar of salt. How often the life of Christians is determined by the fact that first and foremost they look out for themselves, they do good, so to speak, for themselves. And how great is the temptation of all people to be concerned primarily for themselves; to look round for themselves and in the process to become inwardly empty, to become "pillars of salt". But here it was not a matter of seeking fulfilment or wanting to live one’s life for oneself. These young people did good, even at a cost, even if it demanded sacrifice, simply because it is a wonderful thing to do good, to be there for others. All it needs is the courage to make the leap. Prior to all of this is the encounter with Jesus Christ, inflaming us with love for God and for others, and freeing us from seeking our own ego.
Remember Lot’s Wife
J. C. Ryle
________________________________________
There are few warnings in Scripture more solemn than this. Our Lord Jesus Christ says to us, "Remember Lot's wife" (Luke 17:32).
Lot's wife professed the true religion. Her husband was a "righteous man" (2 Peter 2:8). She left Sodom with him on the day when Sodom was destroyed. She looked back towards the city from behind her husband, against God's clear command. She was struck dead at once and turned into a pillar of salt. And our Lord Jesus Christ holds her up as a warning to his church. He says, "Remember Lot's wife."
It is a solemn warning, when we think of the person Jesus names. He does not bid us to remember Abraham, or Isaac, or Jacob, or Sarah, or Hannah, or Ruth. No. He singles out one whose soul was lost forever. He cries out to us, "Remember Lot's wife."
It is a solemn warning, when we consider the subject Jesus is addressing. He is speaking of his own second coming to judge the world: he is describing the awful state of unpreparedness in which many will be found. Judgment is on his mind when he says, "Remember Lot's wife."
It is a solemn warning, when we think of the person who gives it. Our Lord Jesus is full of love, mercy, and compassion. He is one who will never break the bruised reed nor quench the smoking flax. He could weep over unbelieving Jerusalem. He could pray for the men who crucified him. Yet even he thinks it good to give this solemn warning and remind us of lost souls. Even he says, "Remember Lot's wife."
It is a solemn warning, when we think of the persons to whom it was first given. Our Lord Jesus was speaking to his disciples. He was not addressing the scribes and Pharisees who hated him, but Peter, James, and John, and many others who loved him. Yet even to them he thinks it good to address a caution. Even to them he says, "Remember Lot's wife."
It is a solemn warning, when we consider the manner in which it was given. He does not merely say, "Beware of following � take heed of imitating � do not be like � Lot's wife." He uses a different word: he says, "Remember." He speaks as if we are each in danger of forgetting the subject. He stirs up our lazy memories. He bids us keep the case before our minds. He cries, "Remember Lot's wife."
Consider the religious privileges which Lot's wife enjoyed. In the days of Abraham and Lot, true saving religion was scarce on the earth. There were no Bibles, no ministers, no churches, no tracts, no missionaries. The knowledge of God was confined to a few favored families. The greater part of the inhabitants of the world were living in darkness, ignorance, superstition, and sin. Not one in a thousand perhaps had such good example, such spiritual society, such clear knowledge, such plain warnings as Lot's wife. Compared with millions of her fellow creatures in her time, Lot's wife was a favored woman.
She had a believer for her husband. She had Abraham, the father of the faithful, for her uncle by marriage. The faith, the knowledge, and the prayers of these two righteous men could have been no secret to her. It is impossible that she could have dwelt in tents with them for any length of time, without knowing whose they were and whom they served. Religion with them was no formality. It was the ruling principle of their lives. It was the mainspring of their actions. Lot's wife must have seen and known all this. This was no small privilege!
When Abraham first received the promises, Lot's wife was probably there. When he built his tent between Ai and Bethel, she was probably there. When the angels came to Sodom and warned her husband to flee, she saw them. When they took them by the hand and led them out of the city, she was one of those whom they helped to escape. Once more, I say, these were no small privileges!
Yet what good effect did all these privileges have on the heart of Lot's wife? None at all. Despite all her opportunities and means of grace--despite all her special warnings and messages from heaven--she lived and died graceless, godless, impenitent, and unbelieving. The eyes of her understanding were never opened. Her conscience was never really aroused and quickened. Her will was never really brought into a state of obedience to God. Her affections were never really set on things above. The form of religion which she had was kept up for the sake of fashion, not from sincerity. It was a coat worn to please her family, but not from any sense of its value. She did as others around her in Lot's house. She conformed to her husband's ways. She did not oppose his religion. She let herself be passively towed along in his wake. But all this time her heart was wrong in the sight of God. The world was in her heart, and her heart was in the world! In this state she lived, and in this state she died.
There is much to be learned in all this. I see a lesson here which is of the utmost importance in the present day. We live in times when there are many people just like Lot's wife. Come and hear the lesson which her case is meant to teach.
Learn, then, that the mere possession of religious privileges will save no one's soul. You may have spiritual advantages of every description. You may live in the full sunshine of the richest opportunities and means of grace. You may enjoy the best of preaching and the choicest instruction. You may dwell in the midst of light, knowledge, holiness, and good company. All this may be, and yet you yourself may remain unconverted, and in the end be lost for ever.
I dare say this doctrine sounds hard to some readers. I know that many fancy that they need nothing but religious privileges in order to become decided Christians. They grant that they are not what they ought to be at present. But their position is so hard, they plead, and their difficulties are so many. If only they had a godly husband, or a godly wife� If only they had godly companions, or a godly master� If only they had better preaching of the gospel� Give them privileges, and then they will walk with God.
It is all a lie. It is an entire delusion. It requires something more than privileges to save souls. Joab was David's captain. Gehazi was Elisha's servant. Demas was Paul's companion. Judas Iscariot was Christ's disciple. And Lot had a worldly, unbelieving wife. These all died in their sins. They went down to the pit in spite of knowledge, warnings, and opportunities. And they all teach us that we need more than privileges alone. We need the sovereign grace of God in Christ Jesus.
Let us value our religious privileges, but let us never pin our hopes entirely upon them. Let us desire to benefit from them in all our movements in life, but let us never put them in the place of Christ. Let us use them thankfully, if God gives them to us, but let us take care that they produce the fruit of faith and repentance in our hearts and lives. If they do not do good, they do positive harm. They sear our consciences. They increase our responsibility. They aggravate our condemnation. The same fire which melts the wax hardens the clay. The same sun which makes the living tree grow, dries up the dead tree and gets it ready for burning. Nothing so hardens the heart of man as a sterile familiarity with sacred things. Again I say, it is not privileges alone which make people Christians; it is the sovereign grace of God in Christ Jesus. Without that, no one can ever be saved.
You who attend a sound ministry--mark well what I am saying. You go to Mr. A's or Mr. B's church. You think him an excellent preacher. You delight in his sermons. You cannot hear anyone else with the same comfort. You have learned many things since you attended his ministry. You consider it a privilege to be one of his hearers. All this is very good. It is a privilege! I would be very thankful if ministers like yours were multiplied a thousandfold. But, after all, what have you got in your heart? Have you yet received the Holy Spirit? If not, you are no better than Lot's wife!
You children of Christian parents--mark well what I am saying. It is the highest privilege to be the child of a godly father and mother. It is the greatest advantage to be brought up in the midst of many prayers. It is a blessed thing indeed to be taught the gospel from our earliest infancy, and to hear of sin, and Jesus, and the Holy Spirit, and holiness, and heaven, from the first moment we can remember anything. But, oh, take heed that you do not remain barren and unfruitful in the sunshine of all these privileges. Beware lest your hearts remain hard, impenitent, and worldly, in spite of the many advantages you enjoy. You cannot enter the kingdom of God on the credit of your parents' faith. You must eat the Bread of Life for yourself. You must have the witness of the Spirit in your own heart. You must have repentance of your own, faith of your own, and sanctification of your own. If not, you are no better than Lot's wife!
I pray God that all professing Christians in these days may lay these things to heart. May we never forget that privileges alone cannot save us. Light and knowledge, faithful preaching, abundant means of grace, and the company of holy people are all great blessings and advantages. Happy are they that have them! But after all, there is one thing without which privileges are useless. That one thing is the sovereign grace of God in Christ Jesus. Lot's wife had many privileges. But Lot's wife did not have God's grace.
Wednesday, January 25, 2012
Culture War Victory - Implementation of Benedict XVI's Mind: Maggie Gallagher
Culture War Victory – Maggie Gallagher
[This looks like the kind of cultural and apostolic initiative the Pope is looking for].
Dear Friend of Marriage, Life, and Religious Liberty:
Can we achieve victory in America's "culture wars"? Can we stand—successfully—for life, for marriage, and for religious liberty?
I think so.
If you are reading this letter, you think so too. Each week, with your permission I'd like to share with you the most important things you need to know about how to achieve victory in the culture wars. Please sign up today, right now, for the Culture War Victory newsletter, free of charge.
Each week I will ask you to do two things: to think and to act for life, for marriage, and for religious liberty.
Bringing together thought and action is CWVF's unique contribution.
I'm Maggie Gallagher, and, as you know, together we've helped win a few impossible victories.
In the 90's I participated in a great national debate over family structure: are rising rates of fatherlessness and family fragmentation a good thing as progressive elites then so self-righteously proclaimed?
Or do children long for the love of their mother and father united in marriage?
The answer now seems obvious, but it was a long hard fight to win social respect for the view that marriage matters for children.
I've been a syndicated columnist and have authored three books on marriage, including The Case for Marriage: Why Married People are Happier, Healthier, and Better-Off Financially (co-authored with University of Chicago Professor Linda J. Waite).
During the Bush administration I had a front row seat for debates regarding the Federal Marriage Amendment—and I could see the need for a single-issue national activist organization to do the hands-on political work of fighting for marriage and religious liberty—especially in blue states.
So I founded one: The National Organization for Marriage (NOM).
Not all by myself of course. Brian Brown, Princeton Professor Robby George, and a whole host of impressive people came together. In just a few short years, the National Organization for Marriage has become what even the Washington Post called the "pre-eminent national organization" fighting to protect marriage as the union between husband and wife.
In early 2008, NOM helped get Prop 8 on the ballot in California. We changed history.
Click here to subscribe now!
I recall vividly how I was told by fellow conservatives a victory for Prop 8 would be literally impossible. They said:
"It takes $2 million to get a proposition on the ballot in California, you cannot possibly raise the money, you will raise part of the money and leave the donors hanging, if by some miracle you succeed you will lose at the ballot box because the culture has shifted."
Here's the thing I want you to notice about this story.
First, the people who were telling me that success was impossible were people who agreed with me that gay marriage was a civil wrong, not a civil right.
Secondly—and this is the most important thing—none of it turned out to be true.
In six weeks we raised the crucial seven figures needed to succeed in getting Prop 8 on the ballot. During the election, 7 million Californians voted to overturn their state Supreme Court and affirm marriage as the union of husband and wife.
I learned an important lesson from that great victory and I want to share it with you: Despair is the most powerful weapon our opponents have. And despair is self-inflicted—a weapon they can have only if we voluntarily hand it over to them.
In this respect a culture war is like any other war. When is a war over?
The answer is not when one side or the other is literally annihilated—but when one side loses the will to fight.
That's why the "argument from despair" is our opponent's most powerful weapon.
The first step to victory is believing victory is possible.
But the second crucial step is understanding the nature of a culture war.
The inventor of the term "culture war" is Professor James Davison Hunter. In 2002, he delivered an absolutely brilliant, ground breaking, original address "To Change the World". (Professor Hunter later published a book by the same title, which, in my humble opinion, sheds less light, partly because Hunter gets distracted by airing his criticism of the Religious Right's political models—more on that theme in a moment).
Professor Hunter criticizes the common view of culture—that it consists somehow additively in the "values" that inhere in individual hearts and minds. This leads too many social conservatives to the proposition that personal moral evangelization—changing individual hearts and minds—is the key to changing culture.
"Here, let me be blunt," he writes, "if one is serious about changing the world, the first step is to discard this view of culture and how cultures change, for every strategy based upon it will fail—not most strategies, but all strategies."
Evangelization is the task and duty of every believing Christian, in my view. But Professor Hunter is right: this is not the right model for understanding how culture—or the culture war—works.
Cultural power, Professor Hunter teaches us, is the power to name reality.
"Like money, accumulated cultural capital translates into a kind of power and influence. But what kind of power? What kind of influence? It starts as credibility, an authority one possesses which puts one in a position to be taken seriously. It ends as the power to define reality itself. It is the power to name things."
Think for a moment, at the deepest level, about our current struggles over life, marriage, and religious liberty:
Is that thing in the mother's body just a few unimportant clumps of cells or is it a human life, sacred to its Creator, worthy of public respect?
That's the culture war over abortion.
Are two men pledged in a sexual union really a marriage? Or is there some reason virtually every known human society has recognized that an enduring union of husband and wife—in which each is pre-committed to being responsible for the children their bodies may make together—really is different and sacred and necessary to the whole tribe in a unique way?
That's the culture war over marriage.
Is standing up for the great truths of Genesis an exercise in freedom, or an example of discrimination? That's the emerging culture war over religious liberty and it's very serious.
Culture war is not about individual hearts and minds—not about "values"—it's about the nature of reality itself and who is authorized to speak on its behalf.
Culture has a center and a periphery—it is created by elites. And the key actor is not the individual genius, it's the network that spreads ideas.
That's why it takes something like 150 million voters to balance the faculty of Harvard law school.
(By reading this far into this letter, by the way, you are demonstrating your desire to be part of a new elite network of people who care about the foundational ideas of America.)
What is the place of politics in winning a culture war?
Here is where I think Prof. Hunter makes a serious mistake.
"Politics will never be a solution to the challenges we face," he boldly declares, "The work of the political Left and the political Right—even, if not especially, the Religious Right—often makes matters worse."
Of course politics is not "the" solution.
A sophisticated view about the role of politics in a culture war requires starting from this proposition: Politics is not an alternative to culture, it is one potent expression of it. In particular, in the United States politics offers a constraint on the ability of highly credentialed "progressive" elites to impose new norms on the American people, without our consent.
The political process makes it harder for the culturally powerful to de-legitimate alternate views unilaterally as "outside the mainstream."
Thirty-nine years after Roe v. Wade transformed abortion from a crime to a Constitutional right, abortion remains a live, heated, moral and political controversy in America, and the pro-life position is gaining—not losing—adherents.
True, an enormous amount of "cultural production" went into sustaining the pro-life vision and cause by religious leaders, intellectuals, and even the rare artist.
But it is hard to imagine that we would have a vibrant cultural pro-life movement without a political wing.
The political struggle has had enormous cultural implications
Why did Bill Clinton adopt the mantra "maximum feasible accommodation" with religion as an alternative to "separation of church and state"? Why did he call for abortion to be "safe, legal and rare"?
Because he and other Democratic elites were tired of losing political elections on "values" issues. They sought to moderate their expression of views in an effort to win more votes and, in the process, inevitability legitimized "anti-abortion" views as a reasonable position, not a morally extreme view.
This process is part of what has opened up the new pro-life surge in the larger culture. In the struggle to "name reality" intellectual elites cannot simply shut down important public debates because our political process won't let them.
Ironically, we can thank the progressives of the 1920s for this fact: the American system of open primaries is the most open and democratic in the world.
Because the people choose party nominees in an open election, political leaders in the U.S. cannot simply get together and decide to take certain issues "off the table" as they often do in parliamentary systems.
So, for example, despite an August 2011 poll that shows the majority of the British oppose gay marriage, all the major political parties support redefining marriage.
Similarly, after the courts in Canada imposed gay marriage, the leaders of all the major parties decided to support gay marriage. That consensus among leaders effectively blocked off any public visible political reaction to same-sex marriage. A top-down imposed silence replaced a free and fair public debate. Which in turn has made it easier to create a Canada where opposition to same-sex marriage is considered bigoted and "beyond the pale." Ask Damian Goddard, who was fired from his sports broadcasting job in Toronto the day after he tweeted he supports "the true and authentic meaning of marriage." (You can see Damian tell his story at www.marriageada.org.)
As long as Americans keep voting against gay marriage and for marriage as the union of husband and wife, alternative views cannot be totally de-legitimized.
Politics can affect culture by raising the costs to elites of de-legitimizing others' point of view, and by making visible public opposition to the elite cultural consensus.
The same culturally powerful elites now pushing for gay marriage would have, if they could, shut down life issue. They could not, in part, because the American political system did not grant them that power.
The religious right emerged and took political form not because of some false theories of culture, but because in the United States the political system is the hardest part of society for elites and their consensus opinions to shut down.
It is true (as I said) that it takes approximately 150 million ordinary American voters to counterbalance the entire faculty of Harvard.
you need to lead to victory. (Sign up for the fight by joining Culture War Victory fund!)
Politics is only one tool in a culture war—not the be-all or end-all. But it is too important a tool to surrender, unilaterally.
That's why each week at the Culture War Victory Fund I am going to ask you to do two things: to think and to act.
The most hopeful lesson we can learn from the pro-life battles is this: truth matters.
The first step to winning this culture war is simply to stand up and not only proclaim but ACT on the great truths:
That which a mother carried within her body is not a clump of cells, it's a human life, worthy of respect.
The unions of husband and wife really are different than other relationships—we need them, children need them, in a unique way.
An American civilization that attempts to redefine the great truths of Genesis as irrational bigotry is not going to be recognizably American, any longer.
The great lesson of Communism is that systems of thought—even powerful systems of thought created by elites—that are not grounded in human nature will eventually fail. The faith wish we share is simple. Hope is stronger than fear. Love is more powerful than hate. Truth in the end will prevail over falsehoods and prevarication and ideological commitments.
Thanks for caring about the things that really matter.
I look forward to this great conversation continuing each week, another chance to think and to act together on behalf of the principles we hold dear, the truths too dear to surrender.
Can you do me one favor? Can you pass this letter on to one other person whom you think shares our commitment to life, to marriage and to religious liberty? And to the great principle that truth and love will prevail!
Yours, in gratitude and in good faith,
Maggie Gallagher
P.S. Don't forget to pass this on to one friend! Benjamin Franklin said an elite is a person who can influence one vote beyond his or her own. One vote, one book purchase, one new idea—together we can help change the world. —Maggie
I repeat the text of Benedict XVI from January 19, 2012:
"With her long tradition of respect for the right relationship between faith and reason, the Church has a critical role to play in countering cultural currents which, on the basis of an extreme individualism, seek to promote notions of freedom detached from moral truth. Our tradition does not speak from blind faith, but from a rational perspective which links our commitment to building an authentically just, humane and prosperous society to our ultimate assurance that the cosmos is possessed of an inner logic accessible to human reasoning. The Church’s defense of a moral reasoning based on the natural law is grounded on her conviction that this law is not a threat to our freedom, but rather a "language" which enables us to understand ourselves and the truth of our being, and so to shape a more just and humane world. She thus proposes her moral teaching as a message not of constraint but of liberation, and as the basis for building a secure future.
"The Church’s witness, then, is of its nature public: she seeks to convince by proposing rational arguments in the public square. The legitimate separation of Church and State cannot be taken to mean that the Church must be silent on certain issues, nor that the State may choose not to engage, or be engaged by, the voices of committed believers in determining the values which will shape the future of the nation.
"In the light of these considerations, it is imperative that the entire Catholic community in the United States come to realize the grave threats to the Church’s public moral witness presented by a radical secularism which finds increasing expression in the political and cultural spheres. The seriousness of these threats needs to be clearly appreciated at every level of ecclesial life. Of particular concern are certain attempts being made to limit that most cherished of American freedoms, the freedom of religion. Many of you have pointed out that concerted efforts have been made to deny the right of conscientious objection on the part of Catholic individuals and institutions with regard to cooperation in intrinsically evil practices. Others have spoken to me of a worrying tendency to reduce religious freedom to mere freedom of worship without guarantees of respect for freedom of conscience.
"Here once more we see the need for an engaged, articulate and well-formed Catholic laity endowed with a strong critical sense vis-à-vis the dominant culture and with the courage to counter a reductive secularism which would delegitimize the Church’s participation in public debate about the issues which are determining the future of American society. The preparation of committed lay leaders and the presentation of a convincing articulation of the Christian vision of man and society remain a primary task of the Church in your country; as essential components of the new evangelization, these concerns must shape the vision and goals of catechetical programs at every level.
"In this regard, I would mention with appreciation your efforts to maintain contacts with Catholics involved in political life and to help them understand their personal responsibility to offer public witness to their faith, especially with regard to the great moral issues of our time: respect for God’s gift of life, the protection of human dignity and the promotion of authentic human rights. As the Council noted, and I wished to reiterate during my Pastoral Visit, respect for the just autonomy of the secular sphere must also take into consideration the truth that there is no realm of worldly affairs which can be withdrawn from the Creator and his dominion (cfr. Gaudium et Spes, 36). There can be no doubt that a more consistent witness on the part of America’s Catholics to their deepest convictions would make a major contribution to the renewal of society as a whole.
"Dear Brother Bishops, in these brief remarks I have wished to touch upon some of the pressing issues which you face in your service to the Gospel and their significance for the evangelization of American culture. No one who looks at these issues realistically can ignore the genuine difficulties which the Church encounters at the present moment. Yet in faith we can take heart from the growing awareness of the need to preserve a civil order clearly rooted in the Judeo-Christian tradition, as well as from the promise offered by a new generation of Catholics whose experience and convictions will have a decisive role in renewing the Church’s presence and witness in American society. The hope which these "signs of the times" give us is itself a reason to renew our efforts to mobilize the intellectual and moral resources of the entire Catholic community in the service of the evangelization of American culture and the building of the civilization of love. With great affection I commend all of you, and the flock entrusted to your care, to the prayers of Mary, Mother of Hope, and cordially impart my Apostolic Blessing as a pledge of grace and peace in Jesus Christ our Lord."
Robert Moynihan Commenting On Benedict's Example of Living the "Year of Faith"
Is it really true that we cannot speak of God as the source of meaning and good in the world of nature?
The Pope goes to the Bundestag (the law making body of Germany). Robert Moynihan comments: “The essence of the Pope’s thinking is that the West, and the world generally, have lost contact with that deep Christian culture in which the faith and its anthropological presupposition were simply cultural ‘givens’… ‘Whereas in the past it was possible to recognize a unitary cultural matrix, broadly accepted in its appeal to the content of the faith and the values inspired by it, today this no longer seems to be the case in large swathes of society, because of a profound crisis of faith that has affected many people’ (“Year of Faith” 2012-2013).
“So what is Benedict really saying? He is saying that, during this upcoming ‘Year of Faith,’ Catholics should engage in a profound cultural-religious effort to renew their faith, to deepen their understanding of that faith, and to share that faith with others not only in actual teaching, but also through exemplary actions of Christian charity. And that is shat the Pope did in this remarkable speech in Berlin. He presented the model of Solomon to the lawmakers, the model of a ‘listening heart,’ and in doing so, gave those lawmakers a first taste of that longing which ultimately leads to the holy, to the transcendent, to the holy, to the transcendent, to the Good in the Platonic sense, and finally, to Christ himself, and to Christ’s bride, his Church” (Inside the Vatican January 2012, 24).
Notice, Benedict is speaking to a secular audience. He had to speak without presupposing religious faith. He focused his talk on reason. But it is a reason that is brilliant because it is looking at the reality of the self as transfigured by the transcendence of prayer. Reason is not fully reason without faith as the action of going out of self. Reason does not first see the being of “things,” but the “Being of the self” seeing things. This is the first paragraph of Wojtyla’s “Acting Person.” The criterion is “experience.” We experience the self first and always in the act of experience the other as person or thing.
He gives the example of Solomon who is asked by God to make a request. Solomon does not ask for success or material gain. He asks for the will to do what is right and to understand what is right. “How do we recognize what is right? In history, systems of law have almost always been based on religion: decisions regarding what was to be lawful among men were taken with reference to the divinity… Christianity has never proposed a revealed law to the State and to society, that is to say a juridical order derived from revelation. Instead, it has pointed to nature and reason as the true sources of law – and to the harmony of objective and subjective reason, which naturally presupposes that both spheres are rooted in the creative reason of God….
Here we see the two fundamental concepts of nature and conscience, where conscience is nothing other than Solomon’s listening heart, reason that is open to the language of being [See Ratzinger’s “Conscience and Truth” in On Conscience Ignatius (2006)]. The two, although object (nature) and subject (conscience), are “being” in two epistemologically distinct keys. In the Enlightenment, being was discarded because the notion of experience as epistemological criterion was not discovered. Subject and object were sundered, and it became a shibboleth that “ought” could not be derived from “is.”
The result of that was the separation of the moral “ought” from reality, which then descended into relativism and subjectivism. The sensible, visible world of things could not be the grounding and source of truth and good unless a Creator put them into it, and the reigning positivism does not permit talk of God. Kelsen (the great proponent of legal positivism) said norms can only come from the will. Nature therefore could only contain norms if a will had put them there. But this would presuppose a Creator God, whose will had entered into nature. “Any attempt to discuss the truth of this belief is utterly futile. Benedict questioned: “Is it really? I find myself asking. Is it really pointless to wonder whether the objective reason that manifests itself in nature does not presuppose a creative reason, a Creator Spiritus?”
The Pope goes to the Bundestag (the law making body of Germany). Robert Moynihan comments: “The essence of the Pope’s thinking is that the West, and the world generally, have lost contact with that deep Christian culture in which the faith and its anthropological presupposition were simply cultural ‘givens’… ‘Whereas in the past it was possible to recognize a unitary cultural matrix, broadly accepted in its appeal to the content of the faith and the values inspired by it, today this no longer seems to be the case in large swathes of society, because of a profound crisis of faith that has affected many people’ (“Year of Faith” 2012-2013).
“So what is Benedict really saying? He is saying that, during this upcoming ‘Year of Faith,’ Catholics should engage in a profound cultural-religious effort to renew their faith, to deepen their understanding of that faith, and to share that faith with others not only in actual teaching, but also through exemplary actions of Christian charity. And that is shat the Pope did in this remarkable speech in Berlin. He presented the model of Solomon to the lawmakers, the model of a ‘listening heart,’ and in doing so, gave those lawmakers a first taste of that longing which ultimately leads to the holy, to the transcendent, to the holy, to the transcendent, to the Good in the Platonic sense, and finally, to Christ himself, and to Christ’s bride, his Church” (Inside the Vatican January 2012, 24).
Notice, Benedict is speaking to a secular audience. He had to speak without presupposing religious faith. He focused his talk on reason. But it is a reason that is brilliant because it is looking at the reality of the self as transfigured by the transcendence of prayer. Reason is not fully reason without faith as the action of going out of self. Reason does not first see the being of “things,” but the “Being of the self” seeing things. This is the first paragraph of Wojtyla’s “Acting Person.” The criterion is “experience.” We experience the self first and always in the act of experience the other as person or thing.
He gives the example of Solomon who is asked by God to make a request. Solomon does not ask for success or material gain. He asks for the will to do what is right and to understand what is right. “How do we recognize what is right? In history, systems of law have almost always been based on religion: decisions regarding what was to be lawful among men were taken with reference to the divinity… Christianity has never proposed a revealed law to the State and to society, that is to say a juridical order derived from revelation. Instead, it has pointed to nature and reason as the true sources of law – and to the harmony of objective and subjective reason, which naturally presupposes that both spheres are rooted in the creative reason of God….
Here we see the two fundamental concepts of nature and conscience, where conscience is nothing other than Solomon’s listening heart, reason that is open to the language of being [See Ratzinger’s “Conscience and Truth” in On Conscience Ignatius (2006)]. The two, although object (nature) and subject (conscience), are “being” in two epistemologically distinct keys. In the Enlightenment, being was discarded because the notion of experience as epistemological criterion was not discovered. Subject and object were sundered, and it became a shibboleth that “ought” could not be derived from “is.”
The result of that was the separation of the moral “ought” from reality, which then descended into relativism and subjectivism. The sensible, visible world of things could not be the grounding and source of truth and good unless a Creator put them into it, and the reigning positivism does not permit talk of God. Kelsen (the great proponent of legal positivism) said norms can only come from the will. Nature therefore could only contain norms if a will had put them there. But this would presuppose a Creator God, whose will had entered into nature. “Any attempt to discuss the truth of this belief is utterly futile. Benedict questioned: “Is it really? I find myself asking. Is it really pointless to wonder whether the objective reason that manifests itself in nature does not presuppose a creative reason, a Creator Spiritus?”
Archbishop Dolan: "Religious Freedom and Obamacare"
Wall Street Journal Wednesday, January 25, 2012 - op ed.
Religious Freedom and Obamacare
By TIMOTHY M. DOLAN
Religious freedom is the lifeblood of the American people, the cornerstone of American government. When the Founding Fathers determined that the innate rights of men and women should be enshrined in our Constitution, they so esteemed religious liberty that they made it the first freedom in the Bill of Rights.
In particular, the Founding Fathers fiercely defended the right of conscience. George Washington himself declared: "The conscientious scruples of all men should be treated with great delicacy and tenderness; and it is my wish and desire, that the laws may always be extensively accommodated to them." James Madison, a key defender of religious freedom and author of the First Amendment, said: "Conscience is the most sacred of all property."
Scarcely two weeks ago, in its Hosanna-Tabor decision upholding the right of churches to make ministerial hiring decisions, the Supreme Court unanimously and enthusiastically reaffirmed these longstanding and foundational principles of religious freedom. The court made clear that they include the right of religious institutions to control their internal affairs.
Yet the Obama administration has veered in the opposite direction. It has refused to exempt religious institutions that serve the common good—including Catholic schools, charities and hospitals—from its sweeping new health-care mandate that requires employers to purchase contraception, including abortion-producing drugs, and sterilization coverage for their employees.
Last August, when the administration first proposed this nationwide mandate for contraception and sterilization coverage, it also proposed a "religious employer" exemption. But this was so narrow that it would apply only to religious organizations engaged primarily in serving people of the same religion. As Catholic Charities USA's president, the Rev. Larry Snyder, notes, even Jesus and His disciples would not qualify for the exemption in that case, because they were committed to serve those of other faiths.
Since then, hundreds of religious institutions, and hundreds of thousands of individual citizens, have raised their voices in principled opposition to this requirement that religious institutions and individuals violate their own basic moral teaching in their health plans. Certainly many of these good people and groups were Catholic, but many were Americans of other faiths, or no faith at all, who recognize that their beliefs could be next on the block. They also recognize that the cleverest way for the government to erode the broader principle of religious freedom is to target unpopular beliefs first.
Now we have learned that those loud and strong appeals were ignored. On Friday, the administration reaffirmed the mandate, and offered only a one-year delay in enforcement in some cases—as if we might suddenly be more willing to violate our consciences 12 months from now. As a result, all but a few employers will be forced to purchase coverage for contraception, abortion drugs and sterilization services even when they seriously object to them. All who share the cost of health plans that include such services will be forced to pay for them as well. Surely it violates freedom of religion to force religious ministries and citizens to buy health coverage to which they object as a matter of conscience and religious principle.
The rule forces insurance companies to provide these services without a co-pay, suggesting they are "free"—but it is naïve to believe that. There is no free lunch, and you can be sure there's no free abortion, sterilization or contraception. There will be a source of funding: you.
Coercing religious ministries and citizens to pay directly for actions that violate their teaching is an unprecedented incursion into freedom of conscience. Organizations fear that this unjust rule will force them to take one horn or the other of an unacceptable dilemma: Stop serving people of all faiths in their ministries—so that they will fall under the narrow exemption—or stop providing health-care coverage to their own employees.
The Catholic Church defends religious liberty, including freedom of conscience, for everyone. The Amish do not carry health insurance. The government respects their principles. Christian Scientists want to heal by prayer alone, and the new health-care reform law respects that. Quakers and others object to killing even in wartime, and the government respects that principle for conscientious objectors. By its decision, the Obama administration has failed to show the same respect for the consciences of Catholics and others who object to treating pregnancy as a disease.
This latest erosion of our first freedom should make all Americans pause. When the government tampers with a freedom so fundamental to the life of our nation, one shudders to think what lies ahead.
Timothy Dolan is archbishop of New York and president of the U.S. Conference of
Religious Freedom and Obamacare
By TIMOTHY M. DOLAN
Religious freedom is the lifeblood of the American people, the cornerstone of American government. When the Founding Fathers determined that the innate rights of men and women should be enshrined in our Constitution, they so esteemed religious liberty that they made it the first freedom in the Bill of Rights.
In particular, the Founding Fathers fiercely defended the right of conscience. George Washington himself declared: "The conscientious scruples of all men should be treated with great delicacy and tenderness; and it is my wish and desire, that the laws may always be extensively accommodated to them." James Madison, a key defender of religious freedom and author of the First Amendment, said: "Conscience is the most sacred of all property."
Scarcely two weeks ago, in its Hosanna-Tabor decision upholding the right of churches to make ministerial hiring decisions, the Supreme Court unanimously and enthusiastically reaffirmed these longstanding and foundational principles of religious freedom. The court made clear that they include the right of religious institutions to control their internal affairs.
Yet the Obama administration has veered in the opposite direction. It has refused to exempt religious institutions that serve the common good—including Catholic schools, charities and hospitals—from its sweeping new health-care mandate that requires employers to purchase contraception, including abortion-producing drugs, and sterilization coverage for their employees.
Last August, when the administration first proposed this nationwide mandate for contraception and sterilization coverage, it also proposed a "religious employer" exemption. But this was so narrow that it would apply only to religious organizations engaged primarily in serving people of the same religion. As Catholic Charities USA's president, the Rev. Larry Snyder, notes, even Jesus and His disciples would not qualify for the exemption in that case, because they were committed to serve those of other faiths.
Since then, hundreds of religious institutions, and hundreds of thousands of individual citizens, have raised their voices in principled opposition to this requirement that religious institutions and individuals violate their own basic moral teaching in their health plans. Certainly many of these good people and groups were Catholic, but many were Americans of other faiths, or no faith at all, who recognize that their beliefs could be next on the block. They also recognize that the cleverest way for the government to erode the broader principle of religious freedom is to target unpopular beliefs first.
Now we have learned that those loud and strong appeals were ignored. On Friday, the administration reaffirmed the mandate, and offered only a one-year delay in enforcement in some cases—as if we might suddenly be more willing to violate our consciences 12 months from now. As a result, all but a few employers will be forced to purchase coverage for contraception, abortion drugs and sterilization services even when they seriously object to them. All who share the cost of health plans that include such services will be forced to pay for them as well. Surely it violates freedom of religion to force religious ministries and citizens to buy health coverage to which they object as a matter of conscience and religious principle.
The rule forces insurance companies to provide these services without a co-pay, suggesting they are "free"—but it is naïve to believe that. There is no free lunch, and you can be sure there's no free abortion, sterilization or contraception. There will be a source of funding: you.
Coercing religious ministries and citizens to pay directly for actions that violate their teaching is an unprecedented incursion into freedom of conscience. Organizations fear that this unjust rule will force them to take one horn or the other of an unacceptable dilemma: Stop serving people of all faiths in their ministries—so that they will fall under the narrow exemption—or stop providing health-care coverage to their own employees.
The Catholic Church defends religious liberty, including freedom of conscience, for everyone. The Amish do not carry health insurance. The government respects their principles. Christian Scientists want to heal by prayer alone, and the new health-care reform law respects that. Quakers and others object to killing even in wartime, and the government respects that principle for conscientious objectors. By its decision, the Obama administration has failed to show the same respect for the consciences of Catholics and others who object to treating pregnancy as a disease.
This latest erosion of our first freedom should make all Americans pause. When the government tampers with a freedom so fundamental to the life of our nation, one shudders to think what lies ahead.
Timothy Dolan is archbishop of New York and president of the U.S. Conference of
Monday, January 23, 2012
Christie's Incoherence on Values and the Family
Gov. Chris Christie today nominated an openly gay African-American Republican mayor and a Korean-American assistant attorney general to the state’s highest court.
Two nominees are Phil Kwon, 44, who worked under Christie when he was U.S. attorney for New Jersey, and Bruce Harris, 61, who was elected mayor of Chatham Borough in November.
Kwon, of Bergen County, would be the first Asian-American to sit on the state Supreme Court , and Harris would be the first openly gay justice.
"I am honored to nominate these two gentlemen," Christie said at a Statehouse news conference. "I trust the Senate will take into account their extraordinary backgrounds and experience and will give them swift hearings.”
The nominees would replace former Justice John Wallace Jr., whom Christie declined to reappoint in 2010, and Justice Virginia Long, who faces mandatory retirement on March 1.
Christie has emphasized that he wants to remake the Supreme Court, which he blames for tying his hands on such issues as financing poor school districts and affordable housing. Last May the state Supreme Court voted 3-2 to force the state to pay $500 million more than Christie had budgeted for New Jersey's poorest school districts.
In 2010, Christie touched off a firestorm when he declined to renominate Wallace. Senate Democrats, infuriated by the unprecedented move, refused to consider his replacement for the seat, Anne Patterson, for a year. Eventually, Patterson was sworn in to replace Justice Roberto Rivera-Soto, who declined to seek re-nomination, and Wallace’s seat has remained vacant.
After refusing in 2010 to reappointment Wallace — who had two years to go before reaching the mandatory retirement age of 70 — and Rivera-Soto retired, the criticism of Christie grew louder because he left the court with no minority members. The court is currently comprised of five women and two men, all of whom are white.
Tony Kurdzuk/The Star-LedgerGov. Christie today nominated two people for seats on the state Supreme Court.
After refusing in 2010 to reappointment Wallace — who had two years to go before reaching the mandatory retirement age of 70 — and Rivera-Soto retired, the criticism of Christie grew louder because he left the court with no minority members. The court is currently comprised of five women and two men, all of whom are white.
Senate President Stephen Sweeney (D-Gloucester) has said he would keep Wallace’s seat open until the former justice turned 70. His birthday is March 13.
Before joining the state attorney general's office, Kwon was an Assistant U.S. Attorney for New Jersey for more than 10 years. He earned his Bachelor of Arts degree in 1989 from Georgetown University, and graduated from Rutgers-Newark Law School in 1994. From 1994 to 1997, Kwon was an associate at LeBoeuf, Lamb, Greene & MacRae in Newark, and from 1997 to 1999 he was a law clerk to the Federal District Court Judge Harold A. Ackerman.
Harris graduated magna cum laude from Amherst College, and with honors from Boston University Graduate School of Management. He earned a law degree from Yale. In addition to serving as mayor of Chatham, he most recently worked at the law firm of Greenberg Traurig and previously at Riker, Danzi, Scherer, Hyland and Perretti.
Steve Goldstein, the chief executive of Garden State Equality, a gay rights organization, said he was stunned when Christie called to tell him about the imminent nomination of Harris, 60, a graduate of Yale Law School.
"As I told the governor right then and there, you could have picked me up off the floor," Goldstein said.
Gov. Chris Christie today nominated an openly gay African-American Republican mayor and a Korean-American assistant attorney general to the state’s highest court.
Two nominees are Phil Kwon, 44, who worked under Christie when he was U.S. attorney for New Jersey , and Bruce Harris, 61, who was elected mayor of Chatham Borough in November.
Kwon, of Bergen County, would be the first Asian-American to sit on the state Supreme Court , and Harris would be the first openly gay justice.
"I am honored to nominate these two gentlemen," Christie said at a Statehouse news conference. "I trust the Senate will take into account their extraordinary backgrounds and experience and will give them swift hearings.”
The nominees would replace former Justice John Wallace Jr., whom Christie declined to reappoint in 2010, and Justice Virginia Long, who faces mandatory retirement on March 1.
Christie has emphasized that he wants to remake the Supreme Court, which he blames for tying his hands on such issues as financing poor school districts and affordable housing. Last May the state Supreme Court voted 3-2 to force the state to pay $500 million more than Christie had budgeted for New Jersey's poorest school districts.
In 2010, Christie touched off a firestorm when he declined to renominate Wallace. Senate Democrats, infuriated by the unprecedented move, refused to consider his replacement for the seat, Anne Patterson, for a year. Eventually, Patterson was sworn in to replace Justice Roberto Rivera-Soto, who declined to seek re-nomination, and Wallace’s seat has remained vacant.
After refusing in 2010 to reappointment Wallace — who had two years to go before reaching the mandatory retirement age of 70 — and Rivera-Soto retired, the criticism of Christie grew louder because he left the court with no minority members. The court is currently comprised of five women and two men, all of whom are white.
Tony Kurdzuk/The Star-LedgerGov. Christie today nominated two people for seats on the state Supreme Court.
After refusing in 2010 to reappointment Wallace — who had two years to go before reaching the mandatory retirement age of 70 — and Rivera-Soto retired, the criticism of Christie grew louder because he left the court with no minority members. The court is currently comprised of five women and two men, all of whom are white.
Senate President Stephen Sweeney (D-Gloucester) has said he would keep Wallace’s seat open until the former justice turned 70. His birthday is March 13.
Before joining the state attorney general's office, Kwon was an Assistant U.S. Attorney for New Jersey for more than 10 years. He earned his Bachelor of Arts degree in 1989 from Georgetown University, and graduated from Rutgers-Newark Law School in 1994. From 1994 to 1997, Kwon was an associate at LeBoeuf, Lamb, Greene & MacRae in Newark, and from 1997 to 1999 he was a law clerk to the Federal District Court Judge Harold A. Ackerman.
Harris graduated magna cum laude from Amherst College, and with honors from Boston University Graduate School of Management. He earned a law degree from Yale. In addition to serving as mayor of Chatham, he most recently worked at the law firm of Greenberg Traurig and previously at Riker, Danzi, Scherer, Hyland and Perretti.
Steve Goldstein, the chief executive of Garden State Equality, a gay rights organization, said he was stunned when Christie called to tell him about the imminent nomination of Harris, 60, a graduate of Yale Law School.
"As I told the governor right then and there, you could have picked me up off the floor," Goldstein said .
He said that when he met with Christie in 2010 at the governor's request, he told him that while they disagreed on the issue of gay marriage, "he wanted his administration to have a good working relationship with Garden State Equality. "
"That has been the case every step of the way," Goldstein said. "Since Governor Christie took office, his administration has treated us with warmth and responsiveness. Yes is yes, no is no, and we’ll get back to you means they get back to you faster than you thought, usually with invaluable help. "
State Sen. Nicholas Scutari (D-Union), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said the governor’s appointments would get the usual vetting by committee members before a nomination hearing is scheduled .
“We are not going to move hastily,” said Scutari, adding that having the two nominees seated by March 1, as Christie suggested, is unlikely.
Scutari said he was pleased by the diversity of the governor’s appointments, but had yet to examine their professional careers to determine their qualifications for the bench.
By Matt Friedman and Jenna Portnoy/Star-Ledger Staff
--
Larry Cirignano202-306-6863
Two nominees are Phil Kwon, 44, who worked under Christie when he was U.S. attorney for New Jersey, and Bruce Harris, 61, who was elected mayor of Chatham Borough in November.
Kwon, of Bergen County, would be the first Asian-American to sit on the state Supreme Court , and Harris would be the first openly gay justice.
"I am honored to nominate these two gentlemen," Christie said at a Statehouse news conference. "I trust the Senate will take into account their extraordinary backgrounds and experience and will give them swift hearings.”
The nominees would replace former Justice John Wallace Jr., whom Christie declined to reappoint in 2010, and Justice Virginia Long, who faces mandatory retirement on March 1.
Christie has emphasized that he wants to remake the Supreme Court, which he blames for tying his hands on such issues as financing poor school districts and affordable housing. Last May the state Supreme Court voted 3-2 to force the state to pay $500 million more than Christie had budgeted for New Jersey's poorest school districts.
In 2010, Christie touched off a firestorm when he declined to renominate Wallace. Senate Democrats, infuriated by the unprecedented move, refused to consider his replacement for the seat, Anne Patterson, for a year. Eventually, Patterson was sworn in to replace Justice Roberto Rivera-Soto, who declined to seek re-nomination, and Wallace’s seat has remained vacant.
After refusing in 2010 to reappointment Wallace — who had two years to go before reaching the mandatory retirement age of 70 — and Rivera-Soto retired, the criticism of Christie grew louder because he left the court with no minority members. The court is currently comprised of five women and two men, all of whom are white.
Tony Kurdzuk/The Star-LedgerGov. Christie today nominated two people for seats on the state Supreme Court.
After refusing in 2010 to reappointment Wallace — who had two years to go before reaching the mandatory retirement age of 70 — and Rivera-Soto retired, the criticism of Christie grew louder because he left the court with no minority members. The court is currently comprised of five women and two men, all of whom are white.
Senate President Stephen Sweeney (D-Gloucester) has said he would keep Wallace’s seat open until the former justice turned 70. His birthday is March 13.
Before joining the state attorney general's office, Kwon was an Assistant U.S. Attorney for New Jersey for more than 10 years. He earned his Bachelor of Arts degree in 1989 from Georgetown University, and graduated from Rutgers-Newark Law School in 1994. From 1994 to 1997, Kwon was an associate at LeBoeuf, Lamb, Greene & MacRae in Newark, and from 1997 to 1999 he was a law clerk to the Federal District Court Judge Harold A. Ackerman.
Harris graduated magna cum laude from Amherst College, and with honors from Boston University Graduate School of Management. He earned a law degree from Yale. In addition to serving as mayor of Chatham, he most recently worked at the law firm of Greenberg Traurig and previously at Riker, Danzi, Scherer, Hyland and Perretti.
Steve Goldstein, the chief executive of Garden State Equality, a gay rights organization, said he was stunned when Christie called to tell him about the imminent nomination of Harris, 60, a graduate of Yale Law School.
"As I told the governor right then and there, you could have picked me up off the floor," Goldstein said.
Gov. Chris Christie today nominated an openly gay African-American Republican mayor and a Korean-American assistant attorney general to the state’s highest court.
Two nominees are Phil Kwon, 44, who worked under Christie when he was U.S. attorney for New Jersey , and Bruce Harris, 61, who was elected mayor of Chatham Borough in November.
Kwon, of Bergen County, would be the first Asian-American to sit on the state Supreme Court , and Harris would be the first openly gay justice.
"I am honored to nominate these two gentlemen," Christie said at a Statehouse news conference. "I trust the Senate will take into account their extraordinary backgrounds and experience and will give them swift hearings.”
The nominees would replace former Justice John Wallace Jr., whom Christie declined to reappoint in 2010, and Justice Virginia Long, who faces mandatory retirement on March 1.
Christie has emphasized that he wants to remake the Supreme Court, which he blames for tying his hands on such issues as financing poor school districts and affordable housing. Last May the state Supreme Court voted 3-2 to force the state to pay $500 million more than Christie had budgeted for New Jersey's poorest school districts.
In 2010, Christie touched off a firestorm when he declined to renominate Wallace. Senate Democrats, infuriated by the unprecedented move, refused to consider his replacement for the seat, Anne Patterson, for a year. Eventually, Patterson was sworn in to replace Justice Roberto Rivera-Soto, who declined to seek re-nomination, and Wallace’s seat has remained vacant.
After refusing in 2010 to reappointment Wallace — who had two years to go before reaching the mandatory retirement age of 70 — and Rivera-Soto retired, the criticism of Christie grew louder because he left the court with no minority members. The court is currently comprised of five women and two men, all of whom are white.
Tony Kurdzuk/The Star-LedgerGov. Christie today nominated two people for seats on the state Supreme Court.
After refusing in 2010 to reappointment Wallace — who had two years to go before reaching the mandatory retirement age of 70 — and Rivera-Soto retired, the criticism of Christie grew louder because he left the court with no minority members. The court is currently comprised of five women and two men, all of whom are white.
Senate President Stephen Sweeney (D-Gloucester) has said he would keep Wallace’s seat open until the former justice turned 70. His birthday is March 13.
Before joining the state attorney general's office, Kwon was an Assistant U.S. Attorney for New Jersey for more than 10 years. He earned his Bachelor of Arts degree in 1989 from Georgetown University, and graduated from Rutgers-Newark Law School in 1994. From 1994 to 1997, Kwon was an associate at LeBoeuf, Lamb, Greene & MacRae in Newark, and from 1997 to 1999 he was a law clerk to the Federal District Court Judge Harold A. Ackerman.
Harris graduated magna cum laude from Amherst College, and with honors from Boston University Graduate School of Management. He earned a law degree from Yale. In addition to serving as mayor of Chatham, he most recently worked at the law firm of Greenberg Traurig and previously at Riker, Danzi, Scherer, Hyland and Perretti.
Steve Goldstein, the chief executive of Garden State Equality, a gay rights organization, said he was stunned when Christie called to tell him about the imminent nomination of Harris, 60, a graduate of Yale Law School.
"As I told the governor right then and there, you could have picked me up off the floor," Goldstein said .
He said that when he met with Christie in 2010 at the governor's request, he told him that while they disagreed on the issue of gay marriage, "he wanted his administration to have a good working relationship with Garden State Equality. "
"That has been the case every step of the way," Goldstein said. "Since Governor Christie took office, his administration has treated us with warmth and responsiveness. Yes is yes, no is no, and we’ll get back to you means they get back to you faster than you thought, usually with invaluable help. "
State Sen. Nicholas Scutari (D-Union), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said the governor’s appointments would get the usual vetting by committee members before a nomination hearing is scheduled .
“We are not going to move hastily,” said Scutari, adding that having the two nominees seated by March 1, as Christie suggested, is unlikely.
Scutari said he was pleased by the diversity of the governor’s appointments, but had yet to examine their professional careers to determine their qualifications for the bench.
By Matt Friedman and Jenna Portnoy/Star-Ledger Staff
--
Larry Cirignano202-306-6863
Ad Limina Address by Benedict XVI On the Need of the Church in the U.S. to Speak
Benedict XVI's Address to US Bishops on 'Ad Limina' Visit
"The Legitimate Separation of Church and State Cannot Be Taken to Mean That the Church Must Be Silent"
VATICAN CITY, JAN. 19, 2012 (Zenit.org).- Here is the text of the address Benedict XVI gave today to the bishops of Washington, D.C., and surrounding regions, who are at the Vatican for their "ad limina" visit.
* * *
Dear Brother Bishops,
I greet all of you with fraternal affection and I pray that this pilgrimage of spiritual renewal and deepened communion will confirm you in faith and commitment to your task as Pastors of the Church in the United States of America. As you know, it is my intention in the course of this year to reflect with you on some of the spiritual and cultural challenges of the new evangelization.
One of the most memorable aspects of my Pastoral Visit to the United States was the opportunity it afforded me to reflect on America’s historical experience of religious freedom, and specifically the relationship between religion and culture. At the heart of every culture, whether perceived or not, is a consensus about the nature of reality and the moral good, and thus about the conditions for human flourishing. In America, that consensus, as enshrined in your nation’s founding documents, was grounded in a worldview shaped not only by faith but a commitment to certain ethical principles deriving from nature and nature’s God. Today that consensus has eroded significantly in the face of powerful new cultural currents which are not only directly opposed to core moral teachings of the Judeo-Christian tradition, but increasingly hostile to Christianity as such.
For her part, the Church in the United States is called, in season and out of season, to proclaim a Gospel which not only proposes unchanging moral truths but proposes them precisely as the key to human happiness and social prospering (cf. Gaudium et Spes, 10). To the extent that some current cultural trends contain elements that would curtail the proclamation of these truths, whether constricting it within the limits of a merely scientific rationality, or suppressing it in the name of political power or majority rule, they represent a threat not just to Christian faith, but also to humanity itself and to the deepest truth about our being and ultimate vocation, our relationship to God. When a culture attempts to suppress the dimension of ultimate mystery, and to close the doors to transcendent truth, it inevitably becomes impoverished and falls prey, as the late Pope John Paul II so clearly saw, to reductionist and totalitarian readings of the human person and the nature of society.
With her long tradition of respect for the right relationship between faith and reason, the Church has a critical role to play in countering cultural currents which, on the basis of an extreme individualism, seek to promote notions of freedom detached from moral truth. Our tradition does not speak from blind faith, but from a rational perspective which links our commitment to building an authentically just, humane and prosperous society to our ultimate assurance that the cosmos is possessed of an inner logic accessible to human reasoning. The Church’s defense of a moral reasoning based on the natural law is grounded on her conviction that this law is not a threat to our freedom, but rather a "language" which enables us to understand ourselves and the truth of our being, and so to shape a more just and humane world. She thus proposes her moral teaching as a message not of constraint but of liberation, and as the basis for building a secure future.
The Church’s witness, then, is of its nature public: she seeks to convince by proposing rational arguments in the public square. The legitimate separation of Church and State cannot be taken to mean that the Church must be silent on certain issues, nor that the State may choose not to engage, or be engaged by, the voices of committed believers in determining the values which will shape the future of the nation.
In the light of these considerations, it is imperative that the entire Catholic community in the United States come to realize the grave threats to the Church’s public moral witness presented by a radical secularism which finds increasing expression in the political and cultural spheres. The seriousness of these threats needs to be clearly appreciated at every level of ecclesial life. Of particular concern are certain attempts being made to limit that most cherished of American freedoms, the freedom of religion. Many of you have pointed out that concerted efforts have been made to deny the right of conscientious objection on the part of Catholic individuals and institutions with regard to cooperation in intrinsically evil practices. Others have spoken to me of a worrying tendency to reduce religious freedom to mere freedom of worship without guarantees of respect for freedom of conscience.
Here once more we see the need for an engaged, articulate and well-formed Catholic laity endowed with a strong critical sense vis-à-vis the dominant culture and with the courage to counter a reductive secularism which would delegitimize the Church’s participation in public debate about the issues which are determining the future of American society. The preparation of committed lay leaders and the presentation of a convincing articulation of the Christian vision of man and society remain a primary task of the Church in your country; as essential components of the new evangelization, these concerns must shape the vision and goals of catechetical programs at every level.
In this regard, I would mention with appreciation your efforts to maintain contacts with Catholics involved in political life and to help them understand their personal responsibility to offer public witness to their faith, especially with regard to the great moral issues of our time: respect for God’s gift of life, the protection of human dignity and the promotion of authentic human rights. As the Council noted, and I wished to reiterate during my Pastoral Visit, respect for the just autonomy of the secular sphere must also take into consideration the truth that there is no realm of worldly affairs which can be withdrawn from the Creator and his dominion (cfr. Gaudium et Spes, 36). There can be no doubt that a more consistent witness on the part of America’s Catholics to their deepest convictions would make a major contribution to the renewal of society as a whole.
Dear Brother Bishops, in these brief remarks I have wished to touch upon some of the pressing issues which you face in your service to the Gospel and their significance for the evangelization of American culture. No one who looks at these issues realistically can ignore the genuine difficulties which the Church encounters at the present moment. Yet in faith we can take heart from the growing awareness of the need to preserve a civil order clearly rooted in the Judeo-Christian tradition, as well as from the promise offered by a new generation of Catholics whose experience and convictions will have a decisive role in renewing the Church’s presence and witness in American society. The hope which these "signs of the times" give us is itself a reason to renew our efforts to mobilize the intellectual and moral resources of the entire Catholic community in the service of the evangelization of American culture and the building of the civilization of love. With great affection I commend all of you, and the flock entrusted to your care, to the prayers of Mary, Mother of Hope, and cordially impart my Apostolic Blessing as a pledge of grace and peace in Jesus Christ our Lord.
***********************************************************************************
Dear Friends,
As you well know, both Opus Dei and Southmont are open to people of all political opinions and we are very careful not to take any stand on issues on which Catholics faithful to the Church's teaching can legitiamtely differ (for example, on how health care is best delivered). I, of course, have my own opinions, but on properly political issues I try not to express them in any context in which people might think I was speaking for the Work or for Southmont.
There are, however, moral issues on which the Pope and the Bishops have called for Catholics to take a united stand. One of those is the nature of marriage. For that reason, I am, by exception, sending this personal message to you forwarding an e mail form the National Organization for Marriage. This message focuses on the Governor, but of course the legislature will also play a large role in all of this.
I hope that you will read the message below, act on it in the way you think best, and spread it or its contents among your friends.
And, of course, we all need to pray that God will protect marriage in our country.
John Coverdale
"The Legitimate Separation of Church and State Cannot Be Taken to Mean That the Church Must Be Silent"
VATICAN CITY, JAN. 19, 2012 (Zenit.org).- Here is the text of the address Benedict XVI gave today to the bishops of Washington, D.C., and surrounding regions, who are at the Vatican for their "ad limina" visit.
* * *
Dear Brother Bishops,
I greet all of you with fraternal affection and I pray that this pilgrimage of spiritual renewal and deepened communion will confirm you in faith and commitment to your task as Pastors of the Church in the United States of America. As you know, it is my intention in the course of this year to reflect with you on some of the spiritual and cultural challenges of the new evangelization.
One of the most memorable aspects of my Pastoral Visit to the United States was the opportunity it afforded me to reflect on America’s historical experience of religious freedom, and specifically the relationship between religion and culture. At the heart of every culture, whether perceived or not, is a consensus about the nature of reality and the moral good, and thus about the conditions for human flourishing. In America, that consensus, as enshrined in your nation’s founding documents, was grounded in a worldview shaped not only by faith but a commitment to certain ethical principles deriving from nature and nature’s God. Today that consensus has eroded significantly in the face of powerful new cultural currents which are not only directly opposed to core moral teachings of the Judeo-Christian tradition, but increasingly hostile to Christianity as such.
For her part, the Church in the United States is called, in season and out of season, to proclaim a Gospel which not only proposes unchanging moral truths but proposes them precisely as the key to human happiness and social prospering (cf. Gaudium et Spes, 10). To the extent that some current cultural trends contain elements that would curtail the proclamation of these truths, whether constricting it within the limits of a merely scientific rationality, or suppressing it in the name of political power or majority rule, they represent a threat not just to Christian faith, but also to humanity itself and to the deepest truth about our being and ultimate vocation, our relationship to God. When a culture attempts to suppress the dimension of ultimate mystery, and to close the doors to transcendent truth, it inevitably becomes impoverished and falls prey, as the late Pope John Paul II so clearly saw, to reductionist and totalitarian readings of the human person and the nature of society.
With her long tradition of respect for the right relationship between faith and reason, the Church has a critical role to play in countering cultural currents which, on the basis of an extreme individualism, seek to promote notions of freedom detached from moral truth. Our tradition does not speak from blind faith, but from a rational perspective which links our commitment to building an authentically just, humane and prosperous society to our ultimate assurance that the cosmos is possessed of an inner logic accessible to human reasoning. The Church’s defense of a moral reasoning based on the natural law is grounded on her conviction that this law is not a threat to our freedom, but rather a "language" which enables us to understand ourselves and the truth of our being, and so to shape a more just and humane world. She thus proposes her moral teaching as a message not of constraint but of liberation, and as the basis for building a secure future.
The Church’s witness, then, is of its nature public: she seeks to convince by proposing rational arguments in the public square. The legitimate separation of Church and State cannot be taken to mean that the Church must be silent on certain issues, nor that the State may choose not to engage, or be engaged by, the voices of committed believers in determining the values which will shape the future of the nation.
In the light of these considerations, it is imperative that the entire Catholic community in the United States come to realize the grave threats to the Church’s public moral witness presented by a radical secularism which finds increasing expression in the political and cultural spheres. The seriousness of these threats needs to be clearly appreciated at every level of ecclesial life. Of particular concern are certain attempts being made to limit that most cherished of American freedoms, the freedom of religion. Many of you have pointed out that concerted efforts have been made to deny the right of conscientious objection on the part of Catholic individuals and institutions with regard to cooperation in intrinsically evil practices. Others have spoken to me of a worrying tendency to reduce religious freedom to mere freedom of worship without guarantees of respect for freedom of conscience.
Here once more we see the need for an engaged, articulate and well-formed Catholic laity endowed with a strong critical sense vis-à-vis the dominant culture and with the courage to counter a reductive secularism which would delegitimize the Church’s participation in public debate about the issues which are determining the future of American society. The preparation of committed lay leaders and the presentation of a convincing articulation of the Christian vision of man and society remain a primary task of the Church in your country; as essential components of the new evangelization, these concerns must shape the vision and goals of catechetical programs at every level.
In this regard, I would mention with appreciation your efforts to maintain contacts with Catholics involved in political life and to help them understand their personal responsibility to offer public witness to their faith, especially with regard to the great moral issues of our time: respect for God’s gift of life, the protection of human dignity and the promotion of authentic human rights. As the Council noted, and I wished to reiterate during my Pastoral Visit, respect for the just autonomy of the secular sphere must also take into consideration the truth that there is no realm of worldly affairs which can be withdrawn from the Creator and his dominion (cfr. Gaudium et Spes, 36). There can be no doubt that a more consistent witness on the part of America’s Catholics to their deepest convictions would make a major contribution to the renewal of society as a whole.
Dear Brother Bishops, in these brief remarks I have wished to touch upon some of the pressing issues which you face in your service to the Gospel and their significance for the evangelization of American culture. No one who looks at these issues realistically can ignore the genuine difficulties which the Church encounters at the present moment. Yet in faith we can take heart from the growing awareness of the need to preserve a civil order clearly rooted in the Judeo-Christian tradition, as well as from the promise offered by a new generation of Catholics whose experience and convictions will have a decisive role in renewing the Church’s presence and witness in American society. The hope which these "signs of the times" give us is itself a reason to renew our efforts to mobilize the intellectual and moral resources of the entire Catholic community in the service of the evangelization of American culture and the building of the civilization of love. With great affection I commend all of you, and the flock entrusted to your care, to the prayers of Mary, Mother of Hope, and cordially impart my Apostolic Blessing as a pledge of grace and peace in Jesus Christ our Lord.
***********************************************************************************
Dear Friends,
As you well know, both Opus Dei and Southmont are open to people of all political opinions and we are very careful not to take any stand on issues on which Catholics faithful to the Church's teaching can legitiamtely differ (for example, on how health care is best delivered). I, of course, have my own opinions, but on properly political issues I try not to express them in any context in which people might think I was speaking for the Work or for Southmont.
There are, however, moral issues on which the Pope and the Bishops have called for Catholics to take a united stand. One of those is the nature of marriage. For that reason, I am, by exception, sending this personal message to you forwarding an e mail form the National Organization for Marriage. This message focuses on the Governor, but of course the legislature will also play a large role in all of this.
I hope that you will read the message below, act on it in the way you think best, and spread it or its contents among your friends.
And, of course, we all need to pray that God will protect marriage in our country.
John Coverdale
Sunday, January 15, 2012
Martin Luther King, Jr.
"Letter from a Birmingham Jail [King, Jr.]"
16 April 1963
My Dear Fellow Clergymen:
While confined here in the Birmingham city jail, I came across your recent statement calling my present activities "unwise and untimely." Seldom do I pause to answer criticism of my work and ideas. If I sought to answer all the criticisms that cross my desk, my secretaries would have little time for anything other than such correspondence in the course of the day, and I would have no time for constructive work. But since I feel that you are men of genuine good will and that your criticisms are sincerely set forth, I want to try to answer your statement in what I hope will be patient and reasonable terms.
I think I should indicate why I am here in Birmingham, since you have been influenced by the view which argues against "outsiders coming in." I have the honor of serving as president of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, an organization operating in every southern state, with headquarters in Atlanta, Georgia. We have some eighty five affiliated organizations across the South, and one of them is the Alabama Christian Movement for Human Rights. Frequently we share staff, educational and financial resources with our affiliates. Several months ago the affiliate here in Birmingham asked us to be on call to engage in a nonviolent direct action program if such were deemed necessary. We readily consented, and when the hour came we lived up to our promise. So I, along with several members of my staff, am here because I was invited here. I am here because I have organizational ties here.
But more basically, I am in Birmingham because injustice is here. Just as the prophets of the eighth century B.C. left their villages and carried their "thus saith the Lord" far beyond the boundaries of their home towns, and just as the Apostle Paul left his village of Tarsus and carried the gospel of Jesus Christ to the far corners of the Greco Roman world, so am I compelled to carry the gospel of freedom beyond my own home town. Like Paul, I must constantly respond to the Macedonian call for aid.
Moreover, I am cognizant of the interrelatedness of all communities and states. I cannot sit idly by in Atlanta and not be concerned about what happens in Birmingham. Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly. Never again can we afford to live with the narrow, provincial "outside agitator" idea. Anyone who lives inside the United States can never be considered an outsider anywhere within its bounds.
You deplore the demonstrations taking place in Birmingham. But your statement, I am sorry to say, fails to express a similar concern for the conditions that brought about the demonstrations. I am sure that none of you would want to rest content with the superficial kind of social analysis that deals merely with effects and does not grapple with underlying causes. It is unfortunate that demonstrations are taking place in Birmingham, but it is even more unfortunate that the city's white power structure left the Negro community with no alternative.
In any nonviolent campaign there are four basic steps: collection of the facts to determine whether injustices exist; negotiation; self purification; and direct action. We have gone through all these steps in Birmingham. There can be no gainsaying the fact that racial injustice engulfs this community. Birmingham is probably the most thoroughly segregated city in the United States. Its ugly record of brutality is widely known. Negroes have experienced grossly unjust treatment in the courts. There have been more unsolved bombings of Negro homes and churches in Birmingham than in any other city in the nation. These are the hard, brutal facts of the case. On the basis of these conditions, Negro leaders sought to negotiate with the city fathers. But the latter consistently refused to engage in good faith negotiation.
Then, last September, came the opportunity to talk with leaders of Birmingham's economic community. In the course of the negotiations, certain promises were made by the merchants--for example, to remove the stores' humiliating racial signs. On the basis of these promises, the Reverend Fred Shuttlesworth and the leaders of the Alabama Christian Movement for Human Rights agreed to a moratorium on all demonstrations. As the weeks and months went by, we realized that we were the victims of a broken promise. A few signs, briefly removed, returned; the others remained. As in so many past experiences, our hopes had been blasted, and the shadow of deep disappointment settled upon us. We had no alternative except to prepare for direct action, whereby we would present our very bodies as a means of laying our case before the conscience of the local and the national community. Mindful of the difficulties involved, we decided to undertake a process of self purification. We began a series of workshops on nonviolence, and we repeatedly asked ourselves: "Are you able to accept blows without retaliating?" "Are you able to endure the ordeal of jail?" We decided to schedule our direct action program for the Easter season, realizing that except for Christmas, this is the main shopping period of the year. Knowing that a strong economic-withdrawal program would be the by product of direct action, we felt that this would be the best time to bring pressure to bear on the merchants for the needed change.
Then it occurred to us that Birmingham's mayoral election was coming up in March, and we speedily decided to postpone action until after election day. When we discovered that the Commissioner of Public Safety, Eugene "Bull" Connor, had piled up enough votes to be in the run off, we decided again to postpone action until the day after the run off so that the demonstrations could not be used to cloud the issues. Like many others, we waited to see Mr. Connor defeated, and to this end we endured postponement after postponement. Having aided in this community need, we felt that our direct action program could be delayed no longer.
You may well ask: "Why direct action? Why sit ins, marches and so forth? Isn't negotiation a better path?" You are quite right in calling for negotiation. Indeed, this is the very purpose of direct action. Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and foster such a tension that a community which has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue. It seeks so to dramatize the issue that it can no longer be ignored. My citing the creation of tension as part of the work of the nonviolent resister may sound rather shocking. But I must confess that I am not afraid of the word "tension." I have earnestly opposed violent tension, but there is a type of constructive, nonviolent tension which is necessary for growth. Just as Socrates felt that it was necessary to create a tension in the mind so that individuals could rise from the bondage of myths and half truths to the unfettered realm of creative analysis and objective appraisal, so must we see the need for nonviolent gadflies to create the kind of tension in society that will help men rise from the dark depths of prejudice and racism to the majestic heights of understanding and brotherhood. The purpose of our direct action program is to create a situation so crisis packed that it will inevitably open the door to negotiation. I therefore concur with you in your call for negotiation. Too long has our beloved Southland been bogged down in a tragic effort to live in monologue rather than dialogue.
One of the basic points in your statement is that the action that I and my associates have taken in Birmingham is untimely. Some have asked: "Why didn't you give the new city administration time to act?" The only answer that I can give to this query is that the new Birmingham administration must be prodded about as much as the outgoing one, before it will act. We are sadly mistaken if we feel that the election of Albert Boutwell as mayor will bring the millennium to Birmingham. While Mr. Boutwell is a much more gentle person than Mr. Connor, they are both segregationists, dedicated to maintenance of the status quo. I have hope that Mr. Boutwell will be reasonable enough to see the futility of massive resistance to desegregation. But he will not see this without pressure from devotees of civil rights. My friends, I must say to you that we have not made a single gain in civil rights without determined legal and nonviolent pressure. Lamentably, it is an historical fact that privileged groups seldom give up their privileges voluntarily. Individuals may see the moral light and voluntarily give up their unjust posture; but, as Reinhold Niebuhr has reminded us, groups tend to be more immoral than individuals.
We know through painful experience that freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed. Frankly, I have yet to engage in a direct action campaign that was "well timed" in the view of those who have not suffered unduly from the disease of segregation. For years now I have heard the word "Wait!" It rings in the ear of every Negro with piercing familiarity. This "Wait" has almost always meant "Never." We must come to see, with one of our distinguished jurists, that "justice too long delayed is justice denied."
We have waited for more than 340 years for our constitutional and God given rights. The nations of Asia and Africa are moving with jetlike speed toward gaining political independence, but we still creep at horse and buggy pace toward gaining a cup of coffee at a lunch counter. Perhaps it is easy for those who have never felt the stinging darts of segregation to say, "Wait." But when you have seen vicious mobs lynch your mothers and fathers at will and drown your sisters and brothers at whim; when you have seen hate filled policemen curse, kick and even kill your black brothers and sisters; when you see the vast majority of your twenty million Negro brothers smothering in an airtight cage of poverty in the midst of an affluent society; when you suddenly find your tongue twisted and your speech stammering as you seek to explain to your six year old daughter why she can't go to the public amusement park that has just been advertised on television, and see tears welling up in her eyes when she is told that Funtown is closed to colored children, and see ominous clouds of inferiority beginning to form in her little mental sky, and see her beginning to distort her personality by developing an unconscious bitterness toward white people; when you have to concoct an answer for a five year old son who is asking: "Daddy, why do white people treat colored people so mean?"; when you take a cross county drive and find it necessary to sleep night after night in the uncomfortable corners of your automobile because no motel will accept you; when you are humiliated day in and day out by nagging signs reading "white" and "colored"; when your first name becomes "nigger," your middle name becomes "boy" (however old you are) and your last name becomes "John," and your wife and mother are never given the respected title "Mrs."; when you are harried by day and haunted by night by the fact that you are a Negro, living constantly at tiptoe stance, never quite knowing what to expect next, and are plagued with inner fears and outer resentments; when you are forever fighting a degenerating sense of "nobodiness"--then you will understand why we find it difficult to wait. There comes a time when the cup of endurance runs over, and men are no longer willing to be plunged into the abyss of despair. I hope, sirs, you can understand our legitimate and unavoidable impatience. You express a great deal of anxiety over our willingness to break laws. This is certainly a legitimate concern. Since we so diligently urge people to obey the Supreme Court's decision of 1954 outlawing segregation in the public schools, at first glance it may seem rather paradoxical for us consciously to break laws. One may well ask: "How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?" The answer lies in the fact that there are two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that "an unjust law is no law at all."
Now, what is the difference between the two? How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law. Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust. All segregation statutes are unjust because segregation distorts the soul and damages the personality. It gives the segregator a false sense of superiority and the segregated a false sense of inferiority. Segregation, to use the terminology of the Jewish philosopher Martin Buber, substitutes an "I it" relationship for an "I thou" relationship and ends up relegating persons to the status of things. Hence segregation is not only politically, economically and sociologically unsound, it is morally wrong and sinful. Paul Tillich has said that sin is separation. Is not segregation an existential expression of man's tragic separation, his awful estrangement, his terrible sinfulness? Thus it is that I can urge men to obey the 1954 decision of the Supreme Court, for it is morally right; and I can urge them to disobey segregation ordinances, for they are morally wrong.
Let us consider a more concrete example of just and unjust laws. An unjust law is a code that a numerical or power majority group compels a minority group to obey but does not make binding on itself. This is difference made legal. By the same token, a just law is a code that a majority compels a minority to follow and that it is willing to follow itself. This is sameness made legal. Let me give another explanation. A law is unjust if it is inflicted on a minority that, as a result of being denied the right to vote, had no part in enacting or devising the law. Who can say that the legislature of Alabama which set up that state's segregation laws was democratically elected? Throughout Alabama all sorts of devious methods are used to prevent Negroes from becoming registered voters, and there are some counties in which, even though Negroes constitute a majority of the population, not a single Negro is registered. Can any law enacted under such circumstances be considered democratically structured?
Sometimes a law is just on its face and unjust in its application. For instance, I have been arrested on a charge of parading without a permit. Now, there is nothing wrong in having an ordinance which requires a permit for a parade. But such an ordinance becomes unjust when it is used to maintain segregation and to deny citizens the First-Amendment privilege of peaceful assembly and protest.
I hope you are able to see the distinction I am trying to point out. In no sense do I advocate evading or defying the law, as would the rabid segregationist. That would lead to anarchy. One who breaks an unjust law must do so openly, lovingly, and with a willingness to accept the penalty. I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law.
Of course, there is nothing new about this kind of civil disobedience. It was evidenced sublimely in the refusal of Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego to obey the laws of Nebuchadnezzar, on the ground that a higher moral law was at stake. It was practiced superbly by the early Christians, who were willing to face hungry lions and the excruciating pain of chopping blocks rather than submit to certain unjust laws of the Roman Empire. To a degree, academic freedom is a reality today because Socrates practiced civil disobedience. In our own nation, the Boston Tea Party represented a massive act of civil disobedience.
We should never forget that everything Adolf Hitler did in Germany was "legal" and everything the Hungarian freedom fighters did in Hungary was "illegal." It was "illegal" to aid and comfort a Jew in Hitler's Germany. Even so, I am sure that, had I lived in Germany at the time, I would have aided and comforted my Jewish brothers. If today I lived in a Communist country where certain principles dear to the Christian faith are suppressed, I would openly advocate disobeying that country's antireligious laws.
I must make two honest confessions to you, my Christian and Jewish brothers. First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.
I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that law and order exist for the purpose of establishing justice and that when they fail in this purpose they become the dangerously structured dams that block the flow of social progress. I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that the present tension in the South is a necessary phase of the transition from an obnoxious negative peace, in which the Negro passively accepted his unjust plight, to a substantive and positive peace, in which all men will respect the dignity and worth of human personality. Actually, we who engage in nonviolent direct action are not the creators of tension. We merely bring to the surface the hidden tension that is already alive. We bring it out in the open, where it can be seen and dealt with. Like a boil that can never be cured so long as it is covered up but must be opened with all its ugliness to the natural medicines of air and light, injustice must be exposed, with all the tension its exposure creates, to the light of human conscience and the air of national opinion before it can be cured.
In your statement you assert that our actions, even though peaceful, must be condemned because they precipitate violence. But is this a logical assertion? Isn't this like condemning a robbed man because his possession of money precipitated the evil act of robbery? Isn't this like condemning Socrates because his unswerving commitment to truth and his philosophical inquiries precipitated the act by the misguided populace in which they made him drink hemlock? Isn't this like condemning Jesus because his unique God consciousness and never ceasing devotion to God's will precipitated the evil act of crucifixion? We must come to see that, as the federal courts have consistently affirmed, it is wrong to urge an individual to cease his efforts to gain his basic constitutional rights because the quest may precipitate violence. Society must protect the robbed and punish the robber. I had also hoped that the white moderate would reject the myth concerning time in relation to the struggle for freedom. I have just received a letter from a white brother in Texas. He writes: "All Christians know that the colored people will receive equal rights eventually, but it is possible that you are in too great a religious hurry. It has taken Christianity almost two thousand years to accomplish what it has. The teachings of Christ take time to come to earth." Such an attitude stems from a tragic misconception of time, from the strangely irrational notion that there is something in the very flow of time that will inevitably cure all ills. Actually, time itself is neutral; it can be used either destructively or constructively. More and more I feel that the people of ill will have used time much more effectively than have the people of good will. We will have to repent in this generation not merely for the hateful words and actions of the bad people but for the appalling silence of the good people. Human progress never rolls in on wheels of inevitability; it comes through the tireless efforts of men willing to be co workers with God, and without this hard work, time itself becomes an ally of the forces of social stagnation. We must use time creatively, in the knowledge that the time is always ripe to do right. Now is the time to make real the promise of democracy and transform our pending national elegy into a creative psalm of brotherhood. Now is the time to lift our national policy from the quicksand of racial injustice to the solid rock of human dignity.
You speak of our activity in Birmingham as extreme. At first I was rather disappointed that fellow clergymen would see my nonviolent efforts as those of an extremist. I began thinking about the fact that I stand in the middle of two opposing forces in the Negro community. One is a force of complacency, made up in part of Negroes who, as a result of long years of oppression, are so drained of self respect and a sense of "somebodiness" that they have adjusted to segregation; and in part of a few middle-class Negroes who, because of a degree of academic and economic security and because in some ways they profit by segregation, have become insensitive to the problems of the masses. The other force is one of bitterness and hatred, and it comes perilously close to advocating violence. It is expressed in the various black nationalist groups that are springing up across the nation, the largest and best known being Elijah Muhammad's Muslim movement. Nourished by the Negro's frustration over the continued existence of racial discrimination, this movement is made up of people who have lost faith in America, who have absolutely repudiated Christianity, and who have concluded that the white man is an incorrigible "devil."
I have tried to stand between these two forces, saying that we need emulate neither the "do nothingism" of the complacent nor the hatred and despair of the black nationalist. For there is the more excellent way of love and nonviolent protest. I am grateful to God that, through the influence of the Negro church, the way of nonviolence became an integral part of our struggle. If this philosophy had not emerged, by now many streets of the South would, I am convinced, be flowing with blood. And I am further convinced that if our white brothers dismiss as "rabble rousers" and "outside agitators" those of us who employ nonviolent direct action, and if they refuse to support our nonviolent efforts, millions of Negroes will, out of frustration and despair, seek solace and security in black nationalist ideologies--a development that would inevitably lead to a frightening racial nightmare.
Oppressed people cannot remain oppressed forever. The yearning for freedom eventually manifests itself, and that is what has happened to the American Negro. Something within has reminded him of his birthright of freedom, and something without has reminded him that it can be gained. Consciously or unconsciously, he has been caught up by the Zeitgeist, and with his black brothers of Africa and his brown and yellow brothers of Asia, South America and the Caribbean, the United States Negro is moving with a sense of great urgency toward the promised land of racial justice. If one recognizes this vital urge that has engulfed the Negro community, one should readily understand why public demonstrations are taking place. The Negro has many pent up resentments and latent frustrations, and he must release them. So let him march; let him make prayer pilgrimages to the city hall; let him go on freedom rides -and try to understand why he must do so. If his repressed emotions are not released in nonviolent ways, they will seek expression through violence; this is not a threat but a fact of history. So I have not said to my people: "Get rid of your discontent." Rather, I have tried to say that this normal and healthy discontent can be channeled into the creative outlet of nonviolent direct action. And now this approach is being termed extremist. But though I was initially disappointed at being categorized as an extremist, as I continued to think about the matter I gradually gained a measure of satisfaction from the label. Was not Jesus an extremist for love: "Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you." Was not Amos an extremist for justice: "Let justice roll down like waters and righteousness like an ever flowing stream." Was not Paul an extremist for the Christian gospel: "I bear in my body the marks of the Lord Jesus." Was not Martin Luther an extremist: "Here I stand; I cannot do otherwise, so help me God." And John Bunyan: "I will stay in jail to the end of my days before I make a butchery of my conscience." And Abraham Lincoln: "This nation cannot survive half slave and half free." And Thomas Jefferson: "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal . . ." So the question is not whether we will be extremists, but what kind of extremists we will be. Will we be extremists for hate or for love? Will we be extremists for the preservation of injustice or for the extension of justice? In that dramatic scene on Calvary's hill three men were crucified. We must never forget that all three were crucified for the same crime--the crime of extremism. Two were extremists for immorality, and thus fell below their environment. The other, Jesus Christ, was an extremist for love, truth and goodness, and thereby rose above his environment. Perhaps the South, the nation and the world are in dire need of creative extremists.
I had hoped that the white moderate would see this need. Perhaps I was too optimistic; perhaps I expected too much. I suppose I should have realized that few members of the oppressor race can understand the deep groans and passionate yearnings of the oppressed race, and still fewer have the vision to see that injustice must be rooted out by strong, persistent and determined action. I am thankful, however, that some of our white brothers in the South have grasped the meaning of this social revolution and committed themselves to it. They are still all too few in quantity, but they are big in quality. Some -such as Ralph McGill, Lillian Smith, Harry Golden, James McBride Dabbs, Ann Braden and Sarah Patton Boyle--have written about our struggle in eloquent and prophetic terms. Others have marched with us down nameless streets of the South. They have languished in filthy, roach infested jails, suffering the abuse and brutality of policemen who view them as "dirty nigger-lovers." Unlike so many of their moderate brothers and sisters, they have recognized the urgency of the moment and sensed the need for powerful "action" antidotes to combat the disease of segregation. Let me take note of my other major disappointment. I have been so greatly disappointed with the white church and its leadership. Of course, there are some notable exceptions. I am not unmindful of the fact that each of you has taken some significant stands on this issue. I commend you, Reverend Stallings, for your Christian stand on this past Sunday, in welcoming Negroes to your worship service on a nonsegregated basis. I commend the Catholic leaders of this state for integrating Spring Hill College several years ago.
But despite these notable exceptions, I must honestly reiterate that I have been disappointed with the church. I do not say this as one of those negative critics who can always find something wrong with the church. I say this as a minister of the gospel, who loves the church; who was nurtured in its bosom; who has been sustained by its spiritual blessings and who will remain true to it as long as the cord of life shall lengthen.
When I was suddenly catapulted into the leadership of the bus protest in Montgomery, Alabama, a few years ago, I felt we would be supported by the white church. I felt that the white ministers, priests and rabbis of the South would be among our strongest allies. Instead, some have been outright opponents, refusing to understand the freedom movement and misrepresenting its leaders; all too many others have been more cautious than courageous and have remained silent behind the anesthetizing security of stained glass windows.
In spite of my shattered dreams, I came to Birmingham with the hope that the white religious leadership of this community would see the justice of our cause and, with deep moral concern, would serve as the channel through which our just grievances could reach the power structure. I had hoped that each of you would understand. But again I have been disappointed.
I have heard numerous southern religious leaders admonish their worshipers to comply with a desegregation decision because it is the law, but I have longed to hear white ministers declare: "Follow this decree because integration is morally right and because the Negro is your brother." In the midst of blatant injustices inflicted upon the Negro, I have watched white churchmen stand on the sideline and mouth pious irrelevancies and sanctimonious trivialities. In the midst of a mighty struggle to rid our nation of racial and economic injustice, I have heard many ministers say: "Those are social issues, with which the gospel has no real concern." And I have watched many churches commit themselves to a completely other worldly religion which makes a strange, un-Biblical distinction between body and soul, between the sacred and the secular.
I have traveled the length and breadth of Alabama, Mississippi and all the other southern states. On sweltering summer days and crisp autumn mornings I have looked at the South's beautiful churches with their lofty spires pointing heavenward. I have beheld the impressive outlines of her massive religious education buildings. Over and over I have found myself asking: "What kind of people worship here? Who is their God? Where were their voices when the lips of Governor Barnett dripped with words of interposition and nullification? Where were they when Governor Wallace gave a clarion call for defiance and hatred? Where were their voices of support when bruised and weary Negro men and women decided to rise from the dark dungeons of complacency to the bright hills of creative protest?"
Yes, these questions are still in my mind. In deep disappointment I have wept over the laxity of the church. But be assured that my tears have been tears of love. There can be no deep disappointment where there is not deep love. Yes, I love the church. How could I do otherwise? I am in the rather unique position of being the son, the grandson and the great grandson of preachers. Yes, I see the church as the body of Christ. But, oh! How we have blemished and scarred that body through social neglect and through fear of being nonconformists.
There was a time when the church was very powerful--in the time when the early Christians rejoiced at being deemed worthy to suffer for what they believed. In those days the church was not merely a thermometer that recorded the ideas and principles of popular opinion; it was a thermostat that transformed the mores of society. Whenever the early Christians entered a town, the people in power became disturbed and immediately sought to convict the Christians for being "disturbers of the peace" and "outside agitators."' But the Christians pressed on, in the conviction that they were "a colony of heaven," called to obey God rather than man. Small in number, they were big in commitment. They were too God-intoxicated to be "astronomically intimidated." By their effort and example they brought an end to such ancient evils as infanticide and gladiatorial contests. Things are different now. So often the contemporary church is a weak, ineffectual voice with an uncertain sound. So often it is an archdefender of the status quo. Far from being disturbed by the presence of the church, the power structure of the average community is consoled by the church's silent--and often even vocal--sanction of things as they are.
But the judgment of God is upon the church as never before. If today's church does not recapture the sacrificial spirit of the early church, it will lose its authenticity, forfeit the loyalty of millions, and be dismissed as an irrelevant social club with no meaning for the twentieth century. Every day I meet young people whose disappointment with the church has turned into outright disgust.
Perhaps I have once again been too optimistic. Is organized religion too inextricably bound to the status quo to save our nation and the world? Perhaps I must turn my faith to the inner spiritual church, the church within the church, as the true ekklesia and the hope of the world. But again I am thankful to God that some noble souls from the ranks of organized religion have broken loose from the paralyzing chains of conformity and joined us as active partners in the struggle for freedom. They have left their secure congregations and walked the streets of Albany, Georgia, with us. They have gone down the highways of the South on tortuous rides for freedom. Yes, they have gone to jail with us. Some have been dismissed from their churches, have lost the support of their bishops and fellow ministers. But they have acted in the faith that right defeated is stronger than evil triumphant. Their witness has been the spiritual salt that has preserved the true meaning of the gospel in these troubled times. They have carved a tunnel of hope through the dark mountain of disappointment. I hope the church as a whole will meet the challenge of this decisive hour. But even if the church does not come to the aid of justice, I have no despair about the future. I have no fear about the outcome of our struggle in Birmingham, even if our motives are at present misunderstood. We will reach the goal of freedom in Birmingham and all over the nation, because the goal of America is freedom. Abused and scorned though we may be, our destiny is tied up with America's destiny. Before the pilgrims landed at Plymouth, we were here. Before the pen of Jefferson etched the majestic words of the Declaration of Independence across the pages of history, we were here. For more than two centuries our forebears labored in this country without wages; they made cotton king; they built the homes of their masters while suffering gross injustice and shameful humiliation -and yet out of a bottomless vitality they continued to thrive and develop. If the inexpressible cruelties of slavery could not stop us, the opposition we now face will surely fail. We will win our freedom because the sacred heritage of our nation and the eternal will of God are embodied in our echoing demands. Before closing I feel impelled to mention one other point in your statement that has troubled me profoundly. You warmly commended the Birmingham police force for keeping "order" and "preventing violence." I doubt that you would have so warmly commended the police force if you had seen its dogs sinking their teeth into unarmed, nonviolent Negroes. I doubt that you would so quickly commend the policemen if you were to observe their ugly and inhumane treatment of Negroes here in the city jail; if you were to watch them push and curse old Negro women and young Negro girls; if you were to see them slap and kick old Negro men and young boys; if you were to observe them, as they did on two occasions, refuse to give us food because we wanted to sing our grace together. I cannot join you in your praise of the Birmingham police department.
It is true that the police have exercised a degree of discipline in handling the demonstrators. In this sense they have conducted themselves rather "nonviolently" in public. But for what purpose? To preserve the evil system of segregation. Over the past few years I have consistently preached that nonviolence demands that the means we use must be as pure as the ends we seek. I have tried to make clear that it is wrong to use immoral means to attain moral ends. But now I must affirm that it is just as wrong, or perhaps even more so, to use moral means to preserve immoral ends. Perhaps Mr. Connor and his policemen have been rather nonviolent in public, as was Chief Pritchett in Albany, Georgia, but they have used the moral means of nonviolence to maintain the immoral end of racial injustice. As T. S. Eliot has said: "The last temptation is the greatest treason: To do the right deed for the wrong reason."
I wish you had commended the Negro sit inners and demonstrators of Birmingham for their sublime courage, their willingness to suffer and their amazing discipline in the midst of great provocation. One day the South will recognize its real heroes. They will be the James Merediths, with the noble sense of purpose that enables them to face jeering and hostile mobs, and with the agonizing loneliness that characterizes the life of the pioneer. They will be old, oppressed, battered Negro women, symbolized in a seventy two year old woman in Montgomery, Alabama, who rose up with a sense of dignity and with her people decided not to ride segregated buses, and who responded with ungrammatical profundity to one who inquired about her weariness: "My feets is tired, but my soul is at rest." They will be the young high school and college students, the young ministers of the gospel and a host of their elders, courageously and nonviolently sitting in at lunch counters and willingly going to jail for conscience' sake. One day the South will know that when these disinherited children of God sat down at lunch counters, they were in reality standing up for what is best in the American dream and for the most sacred values in our Judaeo Christian heritage, thereby bringing our nation back to those great wells of democracy which were dug deep by the founding fathers in their formulation of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.
Never before have I written so long a letter. I'm afraid it is much too long to take your precious time. I can assure you that it would have been much shorter if I had been writing from a comfortable desk, but what else can one do when he is alone in a narrow jail cell, other than write long letters, think long thoughts and pray long prayers?
If I have said anything in this letter that overstates the truth and indicates an unreasonable impatience, I beg you to forgive me. If I have said anything that understates the truth and indicates my having a patience that allows me to settle for anything less than brotherhood, I beg God to forgive me.
I hope this letter finds you strong in the faith. I also hope that circumstances will soon make it possible for me to meet each of you, not as an integrationist or a civil-rights leader but as a fellow clergyman and a Christian brother. Let us all hope that the dark clouds of racial prejudice will soon pass away and the deep fog of misunderstanding will be lifted from our fear drenched communities, and in some not too distant tomorrow the radiant stars of love and brotherhood will shine over our great nation with all their scintillating beauty.
Yours for the cause of Peace and Brotherhood, Martin Luther King, Jr.
16 April 1963
My Dear Fellow Clergymen:
While confined here in the Birmingham city jail, I came across your recent statement calling my present activities "unwise and untimely." Seldom do I pause to answer criticism of my work and ideas. If I sought to answer all the criticisms that cross my desk, my secretaries would have little time for anything other than such correspondence in the course of the day, and I would have no time for constructive work. But since I feel that you are men of genuine good will and that your criticisms are sincerely set forth, I want to try to answer your statement in what I hope will be patient and reasonable terms.
I think I should indicate why I am here in Birmingham, since you have been influenced by the view which argues against "outsiders coming in." I have the honor of serving as president of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, an organization operating in every southern state, with headquarters in Atlanta, Georgia. We have some eighty five affiliated organizations across the South, and one of them is the Alabama Christian Movement for Human Rights. Frequently we share staff, educational and financial resources with our affiliates. Several months ago the affiliate here in Birmingham asked us to be on call to engage in a nonviolent direct action program if such were deemed necessary. We readily consented, and when the hour came we lived up to our promise. So I, along with several members of my staff, am here because I was invited here. I am here because I have organizational ties here.
But more basically, I am in Birmingham because injustice is here. Just as the prophets of the eighth century B.C. left their villages and carried their "thus saith the Lord" far beyond the boundaries of their home towns, and just as the Apostle Paul left his village of Tarsus and carried the gospel of Jesus Christ to the far corners of the Greco Roman world, so am I compelled to carry the gospel of freedom beyond my own home town. Like Paul, I must constantly respond to the Macedonian call for aid.
Moreover, I am cognizant of the interrelatedness of all communities and states. I cannot sit idly by in Atlanta and not be concerned about what happens in Birmingham. Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly. Never again can we afford to live with the narrow, provincial "outside agitator" idea. Anyone who lives inside the United States can never be considered an outsider anywhere within its bounds.
You deplore the demonstrations taking place in Birmingham. But your statement, I am sorry to say, fails to express a similar concern for the conditions that brought about the demonstrations. I am sure that none of you would want to rest content with the superficial kind of social analysis that deals merely with effects and does not grapple with underlying causes. It is unfortunate that demonstrations are taking place in Birmingham, but it is even more unfortunate that the city's white power structure left the Negro community with no alternative.
In any nonviolent campaign there are four basic steps: collection of the facts to determine whether injustices exist; negotiation; self purification; and direct action. We have gone through all these steps in Birmingham. There can be no gainsaying the fact that racial injustice engulfs this community. Birmingham is probably the most thoroughly segregated city in the United States. Its ugly record of brutality is widely known. Negroes have experienced grossly unjust treatment in the courts. There have been more unsolved bombings of Negro homes and churches in Birmingham than in any other city in the nation. These are the hard, brutal facts of the case. On the basis of these conditions, Negro leaders sought to negotiate with the city fathers. But the latter consistently refused to engage in good faith negotiation.
Then, last September, came the opportunity to talk with leaders of Birmingham's economic community. In the course of the negotiations, certain promises were made by the merchants--for example, to remove the stores' humiliating racial signs. On the basis of these promises, the Reverend Fred Shuttlesworth and the leaders of the Alabama Christian Movement for Human Rights agreed to a moratorium on all demonstrations. As the weeks and months went by, we realized that we were the victims of a broken promise. A few signs, briefly removed, returned; the others remained. As in so many past experiences, our hopes had been blasted, and the shadow of deep disappointment settled upon us. We had no alternative except to prepare for direct action, whereby we would present our very bodies as a means of laying our case before the conscience of the local and the national community. Mindful of the difficulties involved, we decided to undertake a process of self purification. We began a series of workshops on nonviolence, and we repeatedly asked ourselves: "Are you able to accept blows without retaliating?" "Are you able to endure the ordeal of jail?" We decided to schedule our direct action program for the Easter season, realizing that except for Christmas, this is the main shopping period of the year. Knowing that a strong economic-withdrawal program would be the by product of direct action, we felt that this would be the best time to bring pressure to bear on the merchants for the needed change.
Then it occurred to us that Birmingham's mayoral election was coming up in March, and we speedily decided to postpone action until after election day. When we discovered that the Commissioner of Public Safety, Eugene "Bull" Connor, had piled up enough votes to be in the run off, we decided again to postpone action until the day after the run off so that the demonstrations could not be used to cloud the issues. Like many others, we waited to see Mr. Connor defeated, and to this end we endured postponement after postponement. Having aided in this community need, we felt that our direct action program could be delayed no longer.
You may well ask: "Why direct action? Why sit ins, marches and so forth? Isn't negotiation a better path?" You are quite right in calling for negotiation. Indeed, this is the very purpose of direct action. Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and foster such a tension that a community which has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue. It seeks so to dramatize the issue that it can no longer be ignored. My citing the creation of tension as part of the work of the nonviolent resister may sound rather shocking. But I must confess that I am not afraid of the word "tension." I have earnestly opposed violent tension, but there is a type of constructive, nonviolent tension which is necessary for growth. Just as Socrates felt that it was necessary to create a tension in the mind so that individuals could rise from the bondage of myths and half truths to the unfettered realm of creative analysis and objective appraisal, so must we see the need for nonviolent gadflies to create the kind of tension in society that will help men rise from the dark depths of prejudice and racism to the majestic heights of understanding and brotherhood. The purpose of our direct action program is to create a situation so crisis packed that it will inevitably open the door to negotiation. I therefore concur with you in your call for negotiation. Too long has our beloved Southland been bogged down in a tragic effort to live in monologue rather than dialogue.
One of the basic points in your statement is that the action that I and my associates have taken in Birmingham is untimely. Some have asked: "Why didn't you give the new city administration time to act?" The only answer that I can give to this query is that the new Birmingham administration must be prodded about as much as the outgoing one, before it will act. We are sadly mistaken if we feel that the election of Albert Boutwell as mayor will bring the millennium to Birmingham. While Mr. Boutwell is a much more gentle person than Mr. Connor, they are both segregationists, dedicated to maintenance of the status quo. I have hope that Mr. Boutwell will be reasonable enough to see the futility of massive resistance to desegregation. But he will not see this without pressure from devotees of civil rights. My friends, I must say to you that we have not made a single gain in civil rights without determined legal and nonviolent pressure. Lamentably, it is an historical fact that privileged groups seldom give up their privileges voluntarily. Individuals may see the moral light and voluntarily give up their unjust posture; but, as Reinhold Niebuhr has reminded us, groups tend to be more immoral than individuals.
We know through painful experience that freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed. Frankly, I have yet to engage in a direct action campaign that was "well timed" in the view of those who have not suffered unduly from the disease of segregation. For years now I have heard the word "Wait!" It rings in the ear of every Negro with piercing familiarity. This "Wait" has almost always meant "Never." We must come to see, with one of our distinguished jurists, that "justice too long delayed is justice denied."
We have waited for more than 340 years for our constitutional and God given rights. The nations of Asia and Africa are moving with jetlike speed toward gaining political independence, but we still creep at horse and buggy pace toward gaining a cup of coffee at a lunch counter. Perhaps it is easy for those who have never felt the stinging darts of segregation to say, "Wait." But when you have seen vicious mobs lynch your mothers and fathers at will and drown your sisters and brothers at whim; when you have seen hate filled policemen curse, kick and even kill your black brothers and sisters; when you see the vast majority of your twenty million Negro brothers smothering in an airtight cage of poverty in the midst of an affluent society; when you suddenly find your tongue twisted and your speech stammering as you seek to explain to your six year old daughter why she can't go to the public amusement park that has just been advertised on television, and see tears welling up in her eyes when she is told that Funtown is closed to colored children, and see ominous clouds of inferiority beginning to form in her little mental sky, and see her beginning to distort her personality by developing an unconscious bitterness toward white people; when you have to concoct an answer for a five year old son who is asking: "Daddy, why do white people treat colored people so mean?"; when you take a cross county drive and find it necessary to sleep night after night in the uncomfortable corners of your automobile because no motel will accept you; when you are humiliated day in and day out by nagging signs reading "white" and "colored"; when your first name becomes "nigger," your middle name becomes "boy" (however old you are) and your last name becomes "John," and your wife and mother are never given the respected title "Mrs."; when you are harried by day and haunted by night by the fact that you are a Negro, living constantly at tiptoe stance, never quite knowing what to expect next, and are plagued with inner fears and outer resentments; when you are forever fighting a degenerating sense of "nobodiness"--then you will understand why we find it difficult to wait. There comes a time when the cup of endurance runs over, and men are no longer willing to be plunged into the abyss of despair. I hope, sirs, you can understand our legitimate and unavoidable impatience. You express a great deal of anxiety over our willingness to break laws. This is certainly a legitimate concern. Since we so diligently urge people to obey the Supreme Court's decision of 1954 outlawing segregation in the public schools, at first glance it may seem rather paradoxical for us consciously to break laws. One may well ask: "How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?" The answer lies in the fact that there are two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that "an unjust law is no law at all."
Now, what is the difference between the two? How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law. Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust. All segregation statutes are unjust because segregation distorts the soul and damages the personality. It gives the segregator a false sense of superiority and the segregated a false sense of inferiority. Segregation, to use the terminology of the Jewish philosopher Martin Buber, substitutes an "I it" relationship for an "I thou" relationship and ends up relegating persons to the status of things. Hence segregation is not only politically, economically and sociologically unsound, it is morally wrong and sinful. Paul Tillich has said that sin is separation. Is not segregation an existential expression of man's tragic separation, his awful estrangement, his terrible sinfulness? Thus it is that I can urge men to obey the 1954 decision of the Supreme Court, for it is morally right; and I can urge them to disobey segregation ordinances, for they are morally wrong.
Let us consider a more concrete example of just and unjust laws. An unjust law is a code that a numerical or power majority group compels a minority group to obey but does not make binding on itself. This is difference made legal. By the same token, a just law is a code that a majority compels a minority to follow and that it is willing to follow itself. This is sameness made legal. Let me give another explanation. A law is unjust if it is inflicted on a minority that, as a result of being denied the right to vote, had no part in enacting or devising the law. Who can say that the legislature of Alabama which set up that state's segregation laws was democratically elected? Throughout Alabama all sorts of devious methods are used to prevent Negroes from becoming registered voters, and there are some counties in which, even though Negroes constitute a majority of the population, not a single Negro is registered. Can any law enacted under such circumstances be considered democratically structured?
Sometimes a law is just on its face and unjust in its application. For instance, I have been arrested on a charge of parading without a permit. Now, there is nothing wrong in having an ordinance which requires a permit for a parade. But such an ordinance becomes unjust when it is used to maintain segregation and to deny citizens the First-Amendment privilege of peaceful assembly and protest.
I hope you are able to see the distinction I am trying to point out. In no sense do I advocate evading or defying the law, as would the rabid segregationist. That would lead to anarchy. One who breaks an unjust law must do so openly, lovingly, and with a willingness to accept the penalty. I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law.
Of course, there is nothing new about this kind of civil disobedience. It was evidenced sublimely in the refusal of Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego to obey the laws of Nebuchadnezzar, on the ground that a higher moral law was at stake. It was practiced superbly by the early Christians, who were willing to face hungry lions and the excruciating pain of chopping blocks rather than submit to certain unjust laws of the Roman Empire. To a degree, academic freedom is a reality today because Socrates practiced civil disobedience. In our own nation, the Boston Tea Party represented a massive act of civil disobedience.
We should never forget that everything Adolf Hitler did in Germany was "legal" and everything the Hungarian freedom fighters did in Hungary was "illegal." It was "illegal" to aid and comfort a Jew in Hitler's Germany. Even so, I am sure that, had I lived in Germany at the time, I would have aided and comforted my Jewish brothers. If today I lived in a Communist country where certain principles dear to the Christian faith are suppressed, I would openly advocate disobeying that country's antireligious laws.
I must make two honest confessions to you, my Christian and Jewish brothers. First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.
I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that law and order exist for the purpose of establishing justice and that when they fail in this purpose they become the dangerously structured dams that block the flow of social progress. I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that the present tension in the South is a necessary phase of the transition from an obnoxious negative peace, in which the Negro passively accepted his unjust plight, to a substantive and positive peace, in which all men will respect the dignity and worth of human personality. Actually, we who engage in nonviolent direct action are not the creators of tension. We merely bring to the surface the hidden tension that is already alive. We bring it out in the open, where it can be seen and dealt with. Like a boil that can never be cured so long as it is covered up but must be opened with all its ugliness to the natural medicines of air and light, injustice must be exposed, with all the tension its exposure creates, to the light of human conscience and the air of national opinion before it can be cured.
In your statement you assert that our actions, even though peaceful, must be condemned because they precipitate violence. But is this a logical assertion? Isn't this like condemning a robbed man because his possession of money precipitated the evil act of robbery? Isn't this like condemning Socrates because his unswerving commitment to truth and his philosophical inquiries precipitated the act by the misguided populace in which they made him drink hemlock? Isn't this like condemning Jesus because his unique God consciousness and never ceasing devotion to God's will precipitated the evil act of crucifixion? We must come to see that, as the federal courts have consistently affirmed, it is wrong to urge an individual to cease his efforts to gain his basic constitutional rights because the quest may precipitate violence. Society must protect the robbed and punish the robber. I had also hoped that the white moderate would reject the myth concerning time in relation to the struggle for freedom. I have just received a letter from a white brother in Texas. He writes: "All Christians know that the colored people will receive equal rights eventually, but it is possible that you are in too great a religious hurry. It has taken Christianity almost two thousand years to accomplish what it has. The teachings of Christ take time to come to earth." Such an attitude stems from a tragic misconception of time, from the strangely irrational notion that there is something in the very flow of time that will inevitably cure all ills. Actually, time itself is neutral; it can be used either destructively or constructively. More and more I feel that the people of ill will have used time much more effectively than have the people of good will. We will have to repent in this generation not merely for the hateful words and actions of the bad people but for the appalling silence of the good people. Human progress never rolls in on wheels of inevitability; it comes through the tireless efforts of men willing to be co workers with God, and without this hard work, time itself becomes an ally of the forces of social stagnation. We must use time creatively, in the knowledge that the time is always ripe to do right. Now is the time to make real the promise of democracy and transform our pending national elegy into a creative psalm of brotherhood. Now is the time to lift our national policy from the quicksand of racial injustice to the solid rock of human dignity.
You speak of our activity in Birmingham as extreme. At first I was rather disappointed that fellow clergymen would see my nonviolent efforts as those of an extremist. I began thinking about the fact that I stand in the middle of two opposing forces in the Negro community. One is a force of complacency, made up in part of Negroes who, as a result of long years of oppression, are so drained of self respect and a sense of "somebodiness" that they have adjusted to segregation; and in part of a few middle-class Negroes who, because of a degree of academic and economic security and because in some ways they profit by segregation, have become insensitive to the problems of the masses. The other force is one of bitterness and hatred, and it comes perilously close to advocating violence. It is expressed in the various black nationalist groups that are springing up across the nation, the largest and best known being Elijah Muhammad's Muslim movement. Nourished by the Negro's frustration over the continued existence of racial discrimination, this movement is made up of people who have lost faith in America, who have absolutely repudiated Christianity, and who have concluded that the white man is an incorrigible "devil."
I have tried to stand between these two forces, saying that we need emulate neither the "do nothingism" of the complacent nor the hatred and despair of the black nationalist. For there is the more excellent way of love and nonviolent protest. I am grateful to God that, through the influence of the Negro church, the way of nonviolence became an integral part of our struggle. If this philosophy had not emerged, by now many streets of the South would, I am convinced, be flowing with blood. And I am further convinced that if our white brothers dismiss as "rabble rousers" and "outside agitators" those of us who employ nonviolent direct action, and if they refuse to support our nonviolent efforts, millions of Negroes will, out of frustration and despair, seek solace and security in black nationalist ideologies--a development that would inevitably lead to a frightening racial nightmare.
Oppressed people cannot remain oppressed forever. The yearning for freedom eventually manifests itself, and that is what has happened to the American Negro. Something within has reminded him of his birthright of freedom, and something without has reminded him that it can be gained. Consciously or unconsciously, he has been caught up by the Zeitgeist, and with his black brothers of Africa and his brown and yellow brothers of Asia, South America and the Caribbean, the United States Negro is moving with a sense of great urgency toward the promised land of racial justice. If one recognizes this vital urge that has engulfed the Negro community, one should readily understand why public demonstrations are taking place. The Negro has many pent up resentments and latent frustrations, and he must release them. So let him march; let him make prayer pilgrimages to the city hall; let him go on freedom rides -and try to understand why he must do so. If his repressed emotions are not released in nonviolent ways, they will seek expression through violence; this is not a threat but a fact of history. So I have not said to my people: "Get rid of your discontent." Rather, I have tried to say that this normal and healthy discontent can be channeled into the creative outlet of nonviolent direct action. And now this approach is being termed extremist. But though I was initially disappointed at being categorized as an extremist, as I continued to think about the matter I gradually gained a measure of satisfaction from the label. Was not Jesus an extremist for love: "Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you." Was not Amos an extremist for justice: "Let justice roll down like waters and righteousness like an ever flowing stream." Was not Paul an extremist for the Christian gospel: "I bear in my body the marks of the Lord Jesus." Was not Martin Luther an extremist: "Here I stand; I cannot do otherwise, so help me God." And John Bunyan: "I will stay in jail to the end of my days before I make a butchery of my conscience." And Abraham Lincoln: "This nation cannot survive half slave and half free." And Thomas Jefferson: "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal . . ." So the question is not whether we will be extremists, but what kind of extremists we will be. Will we be extremists for hate or for love? Will we be extremists for the preservation of injustice or for the extension of justice? In that dramatic scene on Calvary's hill three men were crucified. We must never forget that all three were crucified for the same crime--the crime of extremism. Two were extremists for immorality, and thus fell below their environment. The other, Jesus Christ, was an extremist for love, truth and goodness, and thereby rose above his environment. Perhaps the South, the nation and the world are in dire need of creative extremists.
I had hoped that the white moderate would see this need. Perhaps I was too optimistic; perhaps I expected too much. I suppose I should have realized that few members of the oppressor race can understand the deep groans and passionate yearnings of the oppressed race, and still fewer have the vision to see that injustice must be rooted out by strong, persistent and determined action. I am thankful, however, that some of our white brothers in the South have grasped the meaning of this social revolution and committed themselves to it. They are still all too few in quantity, but they are big in quality. Some -such as Ralph McGill, Lillian Smith, Harry Golden, James McBride Dabbs, Ann Braden and Sarah Patton Boyle--have written about our struggle in eloquent and prophetic terms. Others have marched with us down nameless streets of the South. They have languished in filthy, roach infested jails, suffering the abuse and brutality of policemen who view them as "dirty nigger-lovers." Unlike so many of their moderate brothers and sisters, they have recognized the urgency of the moment and sensed the need for powerful "action" antidotes to combat the disease of segregation. Let me take note of my other major disappointment. I have been so greatly disappointed with the white church and its leadership. Of course, there are some notable exceptions. I am not unmindful of the fact that each of you has taken some significant stands on this issue. I commend you, Reverend Stallings, for your Christian stand on this past Sunday, in welcoming Negroes to your worship service on a nonsegregated basis. I commend the Catholic leaders of this state for integrating Spring Hill College several years ago.
But despite these notable exceptions, I must honestly reiterate that I have been disappointed with the church. I do not say this as one of those negative critics who can always find something wrong with the church. I say this as a minister of the gospel, who loves the church; who was nurtured in its bosom; who has been sustained by its spiritual blessings and who will remain true to it as long as the cord of life shall lengthen.
When I was suddenly catapulted into the leadership of the bus protest in Montgomery, Alabama, a few years ago, I felt we would be supported by the white church. I felt that the white ministers, priests and rabbis of the South would be among our strongest allies. Instead, some have been outright opponents, refusing to understand the freedom movement and misrepresenting its leaders; all too many others have been more cautious than courageous and have remained silent behind the anesthetizing security of stained glass windows.
In spite of my shattered dreams, I came to Birmingham with the hope that the white religious leadership of this community would see the justice of our cause and, with deep moral concern, would serve as the channel through which our just grievances could reach the power structure. I had hoped that each of you would understand. But again I have been disappointed.
I have heard numerous southern religious leaders admonish their worshipers to comply with a desegregation decision because it is the law, but I have longed to hear white ministers declare: "Follow this decree because integration is morally right and because the Negro is your brother." In the midst of blatant injustices inflicted upon the Negro, I have watched white churchmen stand on the sideline and mouth pious irrelevancies and sanctimonious trivialities. In the midst of a mighty struggle to rid our nation of racial and economic injustice, I have heard many ministers say: "Those are social issues, with which the gospel has no real concern." And I have watched many churches commit themselves to a completely other worldly religion which makes a strange, un-Biblical distinction between body and soul, between the sacred and the secular.
I have traveled the length and breadth of Alabama, Mississippi and all the other southern states. On sweltering summer days and crisp autumn mornings I have looked at the South's beautiful churches with their lofty spires pointing heavenward. I have beheld the impressive outlines of her massive religious education buildings. Over and over I have found myself asking: "What kind of people worship here? Who is their God? Where were their voices when the lips of Governor Barnett dripped with words of interposition and nullification? Where were they when Governor Wallace gave a clarion call for defiance and hatred? Where were their voices of support when bruised and weary Negro men and women decided to rise from the dark dungeons of complacency to the bright hills of creative protest?"
Yes, these questions are still in my mind. In deep disappointment I have wept over the laxity of the church. But be assured that my tears have been tears of love. There can be no deep disappointment where there is not deep love. Yes, I love the church. How could I do otherwise? I am in the rather unique position of being the son, the grandson and the great grandson of preachers. Yes, I see the church as the body of Christ. But, oh! How we have blemished and scarred that body through social neglect and through fear of being nonconformists.
There was a time when the church was very powerful--in the time when the early Christians rejoiced at being deemed worthy to suffer for what they believed. In those days the church was not merely a thermometer that recorded the ideas and principles of popular opinion; it was a thermostat that transformed the mores of society. Whenever the early Christians entered a town, the people in power became disturbed and immediately sought to convict the Christians for being "disturbers of the peace" and "outside agitators."' But the Christians pressed on, in the conviction that they were "a colony of heaven," called to obey God rather than man. Small in number, they were big in commitment. They were too God-intoxicated to be "astronomically intimidated." By their effort and example they brought an end to such ancient evils as infanticide and gladiatorial contests. Things are different now. So often the contemporary church is a weak, ineffectual voice with an uncertain sound. So often it is an archdefender of the status quo. Far from being disturbed by the presence of the church, the power structure of the average community is consoled by the church's silent--and often even vocal--sanction of things as they are.
But the judgment of God is upon the church as never before. If today's church does not recapture the sacrificial spirit of the early church, it will lose its authenticity, forfeit the loyalty of millions, and be dismissed as an irrelevant social club with no meaning for the twentieth century. Every day I meet young people whose disappointment with the church has turned into outright disgust.
Perhaps I have once again been too optimistic. Is organized religion too inextricably bound to the status quo to save our nation and the world? Perhaps I must turn my faith to the inner spiritual church, the church within the church, as the true ekklesia and the hope of the world. But again I am thankful to God that some noble souls from the ranks of organized religion have broken loose from the paralyzing chains of conformity and joined us as active partners in the struggle for freedom. They have left their secure congregations and walked the streets of Albany, Georgia, with us. They have gone down the highways of the South on tortuous rides for freedom. Yes, they have gone to jail with us. Some have been dismissed from their churches, have lost the support of their bishops and fellow ministers. But they have acted in the faith that right defeated is stronger than evil triumphant. Their witness has been the spiritual salt that has preserved the true meaning of the gospel in these troubled times. They have carved a tunnel of hope through the dark mountain of disappointment. I hope the church as a whole will meet the challenge of this decisive hour. But even if the church does not come to the aid of justice, I have no despair about the future. I have no fear about the outcome of our struggle in Birmingham, even if our motives are at present misunderstood. We will reach the goal of freedom in Birmingham and all over the nation, because the goal of America is freedom. Abused and scorned though we may be, our destiny is tied up with America's destiny. Before the pilgrims landed at Plymouth, we were here. Before the pen of Jefferson etched the majestic words of the Declaration of Independence across the pages of history, we were here. For more than two centuries our forebears labored in this country without wages; they made cotton king; they built the homes of their masters while suffering gross injustice and shameful humiliation -and yet out of a bottomless vitality they continued to thrive and develop. If the inexpressible cruelties of slavery could not stop us, the opposition we now face will surely fail. We will win our freedom because the sacred heritage of our nation and the eternal will of God are embodied in our echoing demands. Before closing I feel impelled to mention one other point in your statement that has troubled me profoundly. You warmly commended the Birmingham police force for keeping "order" and "preventing violence." I doubt that you would have so warmly commended the police force if you had seen its dogs sinking their teeth into unarmed, nonviolent Negroes. I doubt that you would so quickly commend the policemen if you were to observe their ugly and inhumane treatment of Negroes here in the city jail; if you were to watch them push and curse old Negro women and young Negro girls; if you were to see them slap and kick old Negro men and young boys; if you were to observe them, as they did on two occasions, refuse to give us food because we wanted to sing our grace together. I cannot join you in your praise of the Birmingham police department.
It is true that the police have exercised a degree of discipline in handling the demonstrators. In this sense they have conducted themselves rather "nonviolently" in public. But for what purpose? To preserve the evil system of segregation. Over the past few years I have consistently preached that nonviolence demands that the means we use must be as pure as the ends we seek. I have tried to make clear that it is wrong to use immoral means to attain moral ends. But now I must affirm that it is just as wrong, or perhaps even more so, to use moral means to preserve immoral ends. Perhaps Mr. Connor and his policemen have been rather nonviolent in public, as was Chief Pritchett in Albany, Georgia, but they have used the moral means of nonviolence to maintain the immoral end of racial injustice. As T. S. Eliot has said: "The last temptation is the greatest treason: To do the right deed for the wrong reason."
I wish you had commended the Negro sit inners and demonstrators of Birmingham for their sublime courage, their willingness to suffer and their amazing discipline in the midst of great provocation. One day the South will recognize its real heroes. They will be the James Merediths, with the noble sense of purpose that enables them to face jeering and hostile mobs, and with the agonizing loneliness that characterizes the life of the pioneer. They will be old, oppressed, battered Negro women, symbolized in a seventy two year old woman in Montgomery, Alabama, who rose up with a sense of dignity and with her people decided not to ride segregated buses, and who responded with ungrammatical profundity to one who inquired about her weariness: "My feets is tired, but my soul is at rest." They will be the young high school and college students, the young ministers of the gospel and a host of their elders, courageously and nonviolently sitting in at lunch counters and willingly going to jail for conscience' sake. One day the South will know that when these disinherited children of God sat down at lunch counters, they were in reality standing up for what is best in the American dream and for the most sacred values in our Judaeo Christian heritage, thereby bringing our nation back to those great wells of democracy which were dug deep by the founding fathers in their formulation of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.
Never before have I written so long a letter. I'm afraid it is much too long to take your precious time. I can assure you that it would have been much shorter if I had been writing from a comfortable desk, but what else can one do when he is alone in a narrow jail cell, other than write long letters, think long thoughts and pray long prayers?
If I have said anything in this letter that overstates the truth and indicates an unreasonable impatience, I beg you to forgive me. If I have said anything that understates the truth and indicates my having a patience that allows me to settle for anything less than brotherhood, I beg God to forgive me.
I hope this letter finds you strong in the faith. I also hope that circumstances will soon make it possible for me to meet each of you, not as an integrationist or a civil-rights leader but as a fellow clergyman and a Christian brother. Let us all hope that the dark clouds of racial prejudice will soon pass away and the deep fog of misunderstanding will be lifted from our fear drenched communities, and in some not too distant tomorrow the radiant stars of love and brotherhood will shine over our great nation with all their scintillating beauty.
Yours for the cause of Peace and Brotherhood, Martin Luther King, Jr.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)