Wisdom from St John Chrysostom

'Christ of Maryknoll' by Br. Robert Lent

"Do you really wish to pay homage to Christ's body? Then do not neglect Him when he is naked. At the same time that you honor Him here with hangings made of silk, do not ignore Him outside when he perishes from cold and nakedness. For the One who said "This is my body"...also said "When I was hungry you gave me nothing to eat"...For is there any point in his table being laden with golden cups while He Himself is perishing from hunger? Don't neglect your brother in his distress while you decorate His house. Your brother is more truly His temple than any Church building."

--Homily 35 on Matthew


"The poor man has one plea, his want and his standing in need: do not require anything else from him; but even if he is the most wicked of all men and is at a loss for his necessary sustenance, let us free him from hunger. Christ also commanded us to do this, when He said, ‘Be like your Father in heaven, for He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust.’ The almsgiver is a harbor for those in necessity: a harbor receives all who have encountered shipwreck, and frees them from danger; whether they are bad or good or whatever they are who are in danger, it escorts them into its own shelter. So you likewise, when you see on earth the man who has encountered the shipwreck of poverty, do not judge him, do not seek an account of his life, but free him from his misfortune. Why do you make trouble for yourself? God has excused you from all officiousness and meddlesomeness. How much most of us would complain, if God had bidden us first to examine each person’s life exactly, to interfere with his behavior and his deeds, and only then to give alms? But as it is we are freed from all this kind of annoyance. Then why do we bring excessive cares on ourselves? A judge is one thing, an almsgiver is another. Charity is so called because we give it even to the unworthy. Paul also advises us to do this, when he says, ‘Do not grow weary in well-doing … to all men, but especially to those who are of the household of faith.’ If we meddle and interfere with the unworthy, not even the worthy will ever willingly come to us; but if we provide also for the unworthy, undoubtedly both the worthy and those who are worth all of them together will come into our hands. This is what happened to the blessed Abraham, who, because he did not meddle or interfere with those who passed by, was able once to receive angels. Let us imitate him, along with his descendant Job. For he also accurately imitated the generosity of his ancestor, and because of this he said, ‘My door was open to every comer.’ It was not open to one and closed to another, but was simply unlocked for everyone."

--Homily II on Lazarus and the rich man

To Bury the Dead: the Necessary Rediscovery of a Medieval Spiritual Practice

Friday I spent most of the day in the library studying. On my way out the door I spent some time reviewing an extensive display set up in the library lobby on the Katyn Massacre. The top two thirds of the display were gave the historical details of the massacre (locations, reasons, impact, etc.) and the bottom third displayed photos of some of the men killed in the massacre. Such a horrifying, sad waste of life! So many wonderful young men killed, an estimated 22,000 of the best of 1940 Poland. The display talked quite a bit about the recovery of the bodies--the discovery of mass graves and the exhumation and reburial of the bodies. There was discussion of the care with which this was done--with a concern to do honor to the dead by the care taken of their bodies.

Then I came home and saw this news story about Tamerlan Tsarnaev's burial in Virginia. And I was deeply frustrated. Angry, even. I had been following the saga of Tsarnaev's body, because I was frankly scandalized that people were so unwilling to give his body a final resting place in Massachusetts, and that even Muslim clergy had indicated their unwillingness to preside over his burial. And now when someone had finally had the guts to step up and offer a place of burial, the community of  Doswell, Virginia had been downright begrudging to find themselves in the role of unwitting host to an displaced body.

I understand that people are grieving and it's hard to be in generous in such a state. But the majority of us (including this community in Virginia, presumably) didn't lose someone in the bombing, and thus can't be excused in that way. The talk of raising money to ship Tsarnaev's body back to Russia (lest he pollute apparently sacred American soil!) smacks of xenophobia, which I find deeply troubling. I'm all for patriotism in response to terrorism, but I get concerned when that seems to entail deciding someone's worthiness to be buried based on their nationality (or faith?). Or when we seem to believe that someone's basic humanity is negated by their involvement in terrorism (Some of those protesting the Worcester funeral home who accepted Tsarnaev's body had held a poster reading "Bury the garbage in the landfill.").

It seems to me it's time to rediscover some Medieval Christian wisdom on the subject. In specific the seven Corporal Works of Mercy:

The seven works of bodily mercy be these: feed the hungry, give drink to the thirsty, clothe the naked and needy, harbor the houseless, comfort the sick, visit prisoners, bury the dead.
                                                           --Middle English Sermons.

These works come from  Matthew 25:34-40, and thus are the works that Jesus gave as distinguishing the righteous from the unrighteous in the final judgement. Those who are blessed in this judgement are those who have done these works to the least (the poor, the unlovable, the undeserving) but which Jesus proclaims they have in reality done to him. The Medieval church embraced these teachings, painting them on their church walls as teaching aides and reminders.

The last work, "Bury the Dead" is not part of the Matthew 25 list; its addition to the list was apparently inspired by the apocryphal Book of Tobit, but also likely out of Medieval plague necessity (think "Bring out your dead!"...). Preparing a body for burial in such circumstances was not only nasty, intimate, but also possibly life threatening act. Handling the dead was a decidedly costly work in an age prior to refrigeration and embalming, where disease might have ruptured the body's envelope, where contagion risks were frighteningly mysterious. Think of the masked rescue workers in the Bangladesh Factory collapse painstakingly unburying the weeks-old dead. Not pretty. Not a glamorous role.

In modern Western society, there is little need for the laity to prepare the dead for burial, and the injunction "Bury the Dead" has an archaic ring to it. But now, here, is a sudden application. A sudden test for our attitude toward the least among us.

I don't know what the secular response to Tsarnaev's dispossessed body ought to be. I know there are both traditions that also honor the dignity of the human person, and those who take a disenchanted view of the world and wouldn't be too fussed about how the physical remains of a person are treated, terrorist or no.

But I do know what a Christian response ought to be. We ought to bury him with all the care and honor that the Polish buried their Katyn dead. If that seems wrong, that's the point. If it seems impossibly hard, then we know we're on the right track.

We ought to do what the funeral director in Worcester did: offer his body a dignified refuge from a state morgue.

We ought to do as one Connecticut man did: offer a burial place next to his mother's grave. 

We ought to do what the woman in Virgina did: recognize that Tsarnaev is the enemy Jesus told her to love and arrange for a burial in accordance with his religious and cultural background.

We ought to bury the body of this terrorist, Tamerlan Tsarnaev, as if it were Jesus' body.

Because the Christian story is all about grace. About undeserved goodness from God. About grace upon grace. Grace for Tamerlan Tsarnaev. Grace for Ariel Castro. Grace for Jerry Sandusky. Grace for Kermit Gosnell. Grace for Bashar al-Assad. In other words, grace for those we think should by rights be beyond grace. Grace for me.

Pro-life Feminism

This fall I led a short presentation and discussion on Pro-life feminism in the feminist research group I'm a part of in grad school. Needless to say, I was in the minority in my pro-life views, however the group was gracious and didn't kill me on the spot. I learned some interesting things about the debate in our discussion, and the topic certainly deserves further coverage in my blog. At the moment however, I thought I would simply share some of the best resources I found in my research for the presentation. Check out these links--they are all well worth it.

ProWomanProLife
This Canadian blog is a good representative of the modern pro-life movement: focused on changing society's attitudes towards abortion, rather than more punitive or inflammatory approaches. Taken as a whole, the blog articulately makes the case that being pro-life is a legitimate feminist view. The nine female contributors (all with very different personalities and reasons for being pro-life), combined with the blog format, allows for a flexible, multifaceted take on various women and abortion related issues. This also means that the posts are occasionally off-topic and humorous , which I think serves to bust some stereotypes about pro-lifer's seriousness and humorlessness.

Better Homes and Children
A fascinating article from a Christian perspective which analyzes the advertising in the '50s for their cleanliness, health and progress narratives, and argues that we've internalized these in our thinking about children and mothering. Amy Laura Hall shows how this thinking has contributed to a devaluing of life-- buying into the myth of the perfect child, the perfect family, has resulted in treating children as commodities, the creation of designer babies, and the rise of abortion. People choose to kill their own child rather than suffer imperfection (either imperfect timing which might disrupt their notion of a perfect life or an imperfect child). Hall describes the societal pressure that leads to this: "Legal, efficient forms of controlling birth changed parenthood from a probable given in marriage to a task that must be chosen responsibly and performed well. Aspiring young couples today often speak about parenthood as if each potential child, each possible life, must be justified—each conception brought about only under the best timing and after obviously adequate preparation." Hall doesn't spare the church, however, and her recent book, Conceiving Parenthood, chronicles the rise of this attitude in her own denomination--Methodist. Both the book and the article make extensive use of popular culture artifacts-- advertising, photographs, church publications, etc. making them engaging reading. (Unfortunately the online version of the article doesn't include the pictures--to see the pictures, find a print version of Books and Culture)

John Piper
John Piper has preached more than his share of sermons on abortion in the course of his ministry. I found one sermon by Piper, Abortion: Shall We Listen to Men or God?, particularly relevant and encouraging. I know it must be difficult to preach on this subject as a modern pastor, and I think Piper sets an excellent example for courage in speaking out.

Life Network
This doesn't exactly qualify as a resource, but Life Network is my local crisis pregnancy center, and so is what I'm generally thinking about when I talk about pro-life action. Over the years they're really done an excellent loving and caring for both mothers and their babies. You may recognize some familiar faces in this promotional video--Jasmin and Silvia with Jasmin's two kids, telling how Life Network was there for them.

Flipsyde--Happy Birthday
Also not really a resource, but a rap song on Youtube about the effects of abortion. Enough said.

Real vs. Fictional Canadians

I have recently become a fan of Due South, a TV show that ran from 1994 to 1999. Due South is a detective show, set in Chicago featuring Benton Fraser, a Canadian Mountie and Ray Vecchio, an American police detective. I initially watched the show with a British friend of mine because I thought it would be fun to laugh at some Canadian and American stereotypes together, but before I knew it I was hooked and begging the York library for Season Two (inexplicably they only have the first season!). True, it can be a bit over the top, but in general Due South doesn’t take itself seriously, and it has some great characters and dialog.

But watching Due South has created a problem for me, a problem of expectations. Or perhaps it’s just revealed my expectations about Canadians, since I think Due South is funny in large part because it taps in to some real Canadian stereotypes, most obviously in the character of Fraser. Fraser has a propensity for jumping off high drops, getting injured in heroic ways, saving damsels in distress, and generally being all around artic he-man. But what really distinguishes him from his American counterpart, (besides women constantly swooning over him, of course), is his unfailing politeness. Besides his more obvious boy scout (helping old ladies across the street) and perfect gentleman (holding doors for rude women) antics, Fraser is polite and courteous to everyone he encounters, whether little children or mafia members. His trademark “Thank you kindly” is delivered sincerely whether the audience is receptive or not.

While I didn’t expect Canadians to jump up and hold doors for me, I’ve been surprised by the level of rudeness I’ve encountered. I hope that this is, as I suspect, more characteristic of Toronto than of more rural Canada, but I’m afraid it might be more widespread. In the rush of a big city one expects all kinds of bumps but the kind of rudeness I’m talking about has more to do with anti-American sentiment, and with what appears to be a concerted effort to distance themselves from the kindly neighbor image Americans have of them.

Of course I have had the misfortune to arrive in conjunction with the American presidential race, and so Canadians are even more interested in American politics than usual. This means that I’ve been on the receiving end of more than my share of political opinion, usually accompanied by some sweeping generalizations about America (almost always negative). I find this tiresome, not least because the folks who lavish their opinion on me often appear to expect me to agree with them, and join them in bashing my country, my president, or my fellow Americans.

But what I really object to is more subtle ways in which Canadians define themselves against America. Things that in America we would call capitalism, or racism, or big box superstores, in Canada, are labeled American evils. Really, anything that’s negative can be relabeled as a distinctively American problem, making Canada out to be morally superior. Racism? That’s a product of America’s long racist history and misguided “melting pot” philosophy; here in Canada we are inclusive and multicultural, thus no racism here! The irony is that Canada’s legendary tolerance appears not to extend to Americans. Canadians would never dream of being as blatantly rude about any other nationality as they are to Americans. It generally goes something like this: “… and that’s why Americans are all so ignorant/racist/fat.” Substitute Iraqis or Indians or Italians and the offensiveness of the blanket statement becomes clear.

The really striking thing is when Canadians are anti-American even when it contradicts their own self interest. When the Canadian dollar reached parity with the American dollar this September there were several jubilant newspaper articles illustrated with variations on the theme of a Loon beating the tar out of an Eagle. Canadians rejoiced at their currency “beating” the American currency, even though the dollar’s parity and America’s economic woes will actually have a cumulatively negative outcome on the Canadian economy. If I were a Freudian, I’d diagnose a severe inferiority complex! Much of this anti-American sentiment appears to arise from some lingering insecurity about the value of Canadian culture. Defining oneself against America is an easy solution to questions of identity.

This makes me sorry (read with a Canadian pronunciation). I like patriots, whether of hometown, state or country, being one myself, on all counts. I had hoped to find people here who loved Canada for what it is, not for what it isn’t. I’ve appreciated my new Canadian friends who’ve pushed back against my negative reactions to certain aspects of Canadian culture, who’ve taught me about curling and milk in a bag, and who’ve almost convinced me that French labeling on food products is rather endearing and that one and two dollar coins makes the most sense in the world. I want to meet more people like this, who love their country and can give me good reasons to love it, too.