#378 Precious Child

Amid this week’s monstrous clash of innocence and evil, I offer a different kind of story that is bringing a new richness to Christmas this year for me and my family…

These days I get up in darkness. In our part of the world we are approaching the winter solstice, and as December’s days shrink shorter and shorter they give the lie to the prevailing notion that value lies in quantity, that “bigger is better,” that “more is better.

The Longest Night begins at Stonehenge

 We lose a little more light each day, so each succeeding day gives us less light, not more. Does that make the daylight any less precious? Of course not! On the contrary, as days shorten the light becomes ever more precious. We come to cherish tiny moments of light.

Rising in the dark, we glow in the sun’s first rays over the breakfast table--rays we sleep through in summertime.

Brief bits of afternoon warmth find as raising our faces to the sun--not baking as in summer, but basking in a pleasure that never makes us seek the shelter of shade.

We know that by suppertime we will be plunged again into darkness, but a December sunset can be every bit as glorious--and infinitely more poignant--than day’s end in June or July.

We inhabit a culture premised on promise, potential, growth, hope--all things that embrace a brighter future. But mid-December’s promise is the opposite: another week still darker than last, until finally, with dreaded winter’s arrival, we begin to regain the light that summer started stealing from us ‘way back in June.

Now is the season of waiting for that return of light. It is why Advent is a season dedicated to waiting, and why Christmas celebrates the return of light. It is why Christmas is in December, on the heels of the solstice.

But Advent’s waiting is also a waiting for the arrival of a child--and here our culture falters. Because it counts so much on future promise and the fulfillment of potential, it struggles to savor the present moment as precious in itself, as a gift to be treasured, even if the gift is failing light. So too we struggle to prize the gift of a baby’s birth.

Advent and Christmas are about the world’s biggest birthday. But it is also a celebration of birth itself. It invites us to ask: “Why is any birthday a big deal?” Perhaps our culture tempts us to gauge every birth by filtering it through the lens of the future that we think that baby promises. So we see the potential adult in the child, and we rejoice with the child will become--not what the child is already: a miraculous gift born of love.

But for the child itself, and for the child’s parents, the future does not matter. Potential is irrelevant. What matters on any birthday is the presence of the new life among us, a new person to love, a new member of the human family.

Mary and Joseph were no different, I am sure. The gospels naturally tell the story in hindsight: this baby will be the savior of the world! But for them, in that moment, having their child was miracle enough. Their baby, in that moment, brings a holy light into their lives.

Every baby does that. Every child is precious in that very moment. That is why every birthday matters. It is a moment never to be repeated--no matter what the future brings. All the waiting of pregnancy has its fulfillment in that miraculous moment when the baby, so long hidden from view, joins his parents and feels their love surround him.

Every parent knows this. Parenthood may cost us the price that we dread our child suffering as long as we both live—but above all parenthood yields the joy of witnessing our love take a living human form.

In our age, that witness begins with the first ultrasound image, continues with every kick from the womb, and bursts into view when our baby finally joins us. In the face of that miracle, there is a sense in which all the rest is anticlimax. For us, because of that miracle in that moment, the world will never be the same.

And if Christmas is about the miracle of that divine spark in a baby--about the birth of the baby as a gift of grace to the human family--it is gratifying and profoundly moving to see some parents who still possess a wisdom that is unfazed by their culture, who see the timeless grace and beauty that can be in even one brief miraculous moment.

That is the story of Emily and Mike. I know them through a child of my own, and the story of their child story touches me through him.

Like all expectant couples, they waited and wondered as Emily’s pregnancy advanced. They planned their plans and dreamed their dreams, like anyone else, never dreaming that their child would arrive only to depart in eight short weeks.

Once he arrived, they named him Charles Jerry Davis and they devoted every energy to making him feel as safe and happy and loved as they knew how. They struggled as he struggled, they held him and cherished him, they celebrated every precious moment they could be with him, even--and especially--when they began to know that he could not stay long.

And when he left--on September 20, the last day longer than the night before, when we all turned together toward the winter solstice--they had both the wisdom and the courage to see their time with Charlie as a precious gift. For they knew that even Charlie’s one brief shining moment among us was enough to mark him a precious child.

So shortly afterward they sent a card to all their family, loved ones, and friends. On the cover is a black and white photo of Charlie’s feet, with this inscription: “Even the littlest feet leave footprints…”

Inside is a color photo worthy of any Christmas card. Mother and child pose like a madonna, wrapped in the encircling arms of husband and father, his free hand cradling the baby’s head. The caption reads “Charlie Davis - - little feet, big footprints, 7.25.12—9.20.12.”

And on the facing page are these words, under the title “Charlie’s footprints”:
1. Be kind…To your loved ones, to strangers, to yourself. Life is too short to be angry, grumpy, or bitter.
2. Be brave. You are stronger than you ever imagined.
3. Be optimistic. Bad things do happen, but you’ll be a lot happier believing things will be OK rather than wasting Precious Time &Energy imagining all things that might go wrong. And things will be OK.
4. Be here right now. And find the joy in it.
5. Love fearlessly. Even if you get your heart broken, it will be worth it.

The parents added the following footnote:
Thank you for sharing this journey with us and for loving our sweet Charlie. We are sending this card because, in some way, you have helped us along the road. Whether you gave love, support, medical care, encourage in words, lasagna, prayers, or positive thoughts, the fact that you cared means the world to us. Lots of love, the Davis family.

When I got this in the mail, I opened the card and lost my composure halfway through. My composure fails me again every time I see it, and even now as I copy it for you, dear reader. And even again, every time I proofread my draft.

Such rare courage and wisdom profoundly move me, well beyond my own self control. My parents left this world in 2012, and even my own days have started dwindling. At my age, it is natural to begin investing one’s hopes not in career, or personal accomplishments, but in one’s legacy to those who will be here in the future that one will not see.

It is often tempting to despair of that future if the next generation seems shallow, preoccupied with things, unable to challenge the conventional wisdom of the day, uninterested in seeking (let alone finding) the true meaning and value of their lives.

People like me thus naturally begin to look for inspiration from others—and especially from others younger than us. We look for examples of true wisdom, of younger people who grasp what is real and who treasure what is valuable.

And as Christmas approaches, I look for those who get the point of a baby’s birth: the gift from God that changes our life forever, even if that moment passes in an instant, in the twinkling of an eye.

I find that inspiration in Emily and Mike.

So for me Christmas 2012 becomes a celebration of Charlie and also a celebration of the two “Wise People” who knew that the real gift was not what they brought to him, but what he gave to them—and to all of us.

 
[NOTE: the photos are not of Charlie; The Davis’ story is inspiration for us all, but their images were for those lucky enough to receive their card.]

© Bernard F. Swain PhD 2012

348: What’s Happening to OUR Holiday?

This is the last of my Christmas flashbacks. It comes from early this year, looking back on Christmas 2011.

As the Christmas Season finally concluded last week with the Feast of the Epiphany, my mind remained cluttered with varied and contrary thoughts about the way our culture is treating Christmas. Even after more than two weeks’ reflection, my view is not completely clear. Still, I would like to share my thinking so readers can do some thinking of their own. Bear with me as I move from point to point; it may or may not add up to a coherent argument.

First, there is little surprise that what Catholics call “Advent” is virtually invisible in American culture. Even within the Church, Advent meant little more than “Little Lent” to most Catholics until the last 40 years, and by then the rising power of consumerism had already absorbed the entire calendar between “Black Friday” and Christmas Eve. Indeed, our economy has become so dependent on that period’s retail sales (for some retail items, that single month yields the majority of annual revenue) that it would appear downright un-American to insist that people spend much of December in quiet reflection and preparation rather than frantic shopping and celebration.

Second, the traditional “12 days of Christmas” have largely disappeared as well. I wonder what people think now when they hear the song? In any case, after a month of nonstop shopping, parties, concerts and outings leading up to Christmas day, most people are too out of gas to rev up for an additional 12 days of celebrating. Besides, not much is happening once Christmas Day passes--except gift returns, post-Christmas sales, and end-of-year preparations for New Year’s celebrations.

Third, you probably noticed that in 2011, more than previous years, the very word “Christmas” has become endangered. Advertisers and media referred to “the holidays,” the “holiday season,” sometimes even simply “holiday.” Governors renamed their state Christmas trees the “Holiday Tree”; people wished each other “Happy Holidays,” and commercials even parodied Christian attempts to refocus on Christmas, telling us that it is the “season of the reason” for buying a new car.

It almost seems that Christmas is becoming the holiday that dare not speak its name (to paraphrase Oscar Wilde)!

My initial reflex is to adopt my traditional Christmas role as cultural curmudgeon. Growing up, my kids got used to their dad’s way of digging in his heels: traipsing through the woods on Thanksgiving weekend to find a suitable Jesse Tree, painting it and adding one decoration each day during Advent, lighting an Advent wreath each night at dinner, buying our Christmas tree only days before Christmas, then decorating it and installing our Christmas lights on Christmas Eve, scheduling family gatherings during Christmas week. To this day, they tend to turn a jaundiced eye when Christmas displays appear immediately after Thanksgiving, when “holiday music” fills the malls in November, or when Christmas trees appear tossed into the trash on the 3rd Day of Christmas.

But despite my usual hardline instincts for preserving a “traditional” approach to Christmas, I also feel a growing discomfort when I notice that my reactions are matched by many people whose assumptions I do not share.

Some of these people argue that we must preserve Christmas because we are a “Christian nation.” I respectfully disagree. Our nation has Christian roots, but is officially non-sectarian.

Others see themselves defending “traditional” Christmas, when in fact many Christmas customs they defend are less than 100 years old. Even the celebration of Christmas itself is not a constant tradition in our national history. In Puritan New England, for example, its observance was largely outlawed, and in the new American republic even Congress was in session on Christmas Day. We invoke “traditional” for many Christmas customs that have little real tradition behind them (the Christmas crèche is one exception, dating from Francis of Assisi).

Of course, some people simply argue we must preserve “the reason for the season.” But they’re often unclear about what that reason is. Jesus’ birthday is undoubtedly a significant event--but what does celebrating it signify? Some equate it with the “Incarnation” (God taking on human flesh), but Catholicism observes the Incarnation on March 25, and Catholics surely do not wish to argue that the unborn Jesus was not already God in human form. Others see the event as manifesting God’s gift to the world, but we already have Epiphany for that.

My own view is that we celebrate Jesus’ birthday as the moment when his place in history is announced--specifically, his role as the Prince of Peace, offering peace and goodwill to the human family. This matters because it creates an unbreakable bond between Christian faith and the cause of peace.

Finally, some people want to insist on trumpeting “Christmas” to resist what they see as a dangerous inclusivity that embraces Hanukkah, Kwanzaa and, even “Festivus,” and fears offending Jews, Muslims, and even atheists. Personally, I prefer to embrace that inclusivity, and to avoid offense, although I never assume that Christmas greetings will offend (in one store I asked a veiled employee, who was in fact Muslim, how she felt, and we ended up both offering “Happy Christmas” greetings!).

I hesitate to embrace any of these reasons for opposing current trends. Instead, I’m beginning to see this cultural divide--avoiding all but the most generic references to the “holidays,” vs. the loud proclamation of “Christmas”--as a symptom of another, deeper trend in America.

More and more, I sense America drifting (perhaps without much sense of direction) toward a new cultural destination, and, I would argue, toward its true destiny. For I now believe we’re becoming, finally, the land of the religious option.

By that I mean, we’re becoming a land where anyone has the option to choose any religion they want, or no religion at all. This may sound obvious (we think immediately of the First Amendment), but stop and think how rare it actually is.

For most of history, large nations typically mandated (or favored) one official religion and prohibited (or disapproved) all others. So people often had no option, or at least suffered penalties for exercising an option. In the last century, we also saw new nations (like the Soviet Union) that mandated no religion at all. And in much of Europe today, the religious option is tolerated but not well protected.
Even in America, the principle of religious freedom has clashed with the practice of favoring Christianity over all other religions. Americans today remain the most religiously active population of any advanced nation, but now the dominance of Christianity is being challenged by others.

The result is the kind of inconsistency that we might naturally expect when a society is going through a major cultural transition. For example, we hear “Christmas” less and less in the public realm, and we see less and less “Christmas” observance in our towns and cities, street, parks and public places--yet “Christmas Day” remains a legal holiday!

Similarly we continue to see trees, and lights, Santa Claus, and the exchange of gifts (indeed, all these have become key to our economies holiday sales) yet they have all been largely uprooted from their Christian origins.

Something like this has already happened with Valentine’s Day, and Saint Patrick’s Day, Halloween, and even Easter--although we are not yet avoiding those names, only their public religious observance.

Underlying such inconsistency is a conviction that Christianity should enjoy no special privileges. Thus, saying “The Holidays” comes to represent people of all faiths and no faith. The trouble is: why is December 25 a holiday at all, if not to observe the birth of Jesus? Should we print calendars that just say “Holiday Day” in that day’s box?

America may be destined to become the one nation where religion truly is an option--where one may choose any religion without facing mandates, or prohibitions, or privileges, or penalties; a land where the religious option is alive and widely exercised and fair to all traditions. When this happens, America’s religious profile will be nearly unique in all the world.

But meanwhile we are living with the inconsistencies of a transition in which the dominance of Christianity is challenged but not completely erased. In short, we are clearly living in a time of cultural flux, when our principles and our practices do not always match.

In other words, we Americans (and even we American Christians) are still making history. It is not always easy, and it is sometimes troubling and messy, but maybe it simply proves that God is not finished with us yet.

 Bernard F. Swain PhD 2012

WHO Stole Christmas?

Another Christmas-in-culture reflection, this one from 2003:

John Parise was asking for trouble. For five days, the Long Island DJ urged his listeners not to miss the “very big” announcement on his morning talk show. He told them to make sure the kids are listening. Then he dropped his bomb.

He told them there is no Santa Claus. Told them their parents buy all the toys. Told them the proof was hidden in the closets and the attic.

In seconds, the station was flooded with hundreds of angry calls and emails. “This guy’s the DJ who stole Christmas,” one Dad said. “It’s just cruel,” added Mom. Station managers called it “a big mistake,” and apologized, but the DJ defended his action.

What could he have been thinking? He said he was taking stand against the “commercialization” of Christmas: “Christmas has gotten as far way as possible from what Christmas is about. Christmas is doing for others, helping others.”

Well, yes and no. That is, yes, Christmas is about something more than “who has the best sales,” and “making sure your kid has the hottest toy on the block.” And yes, that something more does—indirectly, anyway—entail helping others. But no, that is not “what Christmas is all about.”

It’s really much simpler, much more concrete, and much more obvious than all that. Christmas is about the birth of Jesus. So explaining the “true meaning of Christmas” to kids is not that complicated—at least, it shouldn’t be.

We do, of course, have holidays that are about some general social ideals, like gratitude and generosity (Thanksgiving), or patriotic sacrifice (Memorial Day), or the dignity of work (Labor Day)—but Christmas is not that kind of holiday. No, Christmas is more like Martin Luther King Day—a holiday marking a great man’s birth. Remember, Christmas means “Christ’s Mass”—the day when the mass of the day is in honor of the birth of “Christ.” That’s because Catholics, along with other Christians, believe Jesus to be the Christ—the Messiah. But even non-Christians can understand honoring the birth of the man whose influence has changed the world more than anyone else.

We always told our kids that Santa was the “fun, make believe” part of Christmas, and that Jesus is the real part. They knew that the tree, the ornaments, the carols, the presents, the annual reading of “The Night Before Christmas” and the stockings were all designed to make Jesus’ birthday party the biggest and best party of the year.

We always celebrated Advent during Advent, and Christmas during Christmas. Right after Thanksgiving we’d search the local woods for the perfect dead bough to make our Jesse Tree. At dinner we’d light the Advent Wreath, impatient for the night when we’d finally light enough candles to eat by candlelight. Meanwhile we added ornaments to the Jesse tree, already painted wintry white but gradually growing less bare and more colorful as Christmas approached.

It helped that our kids’ bi-lingual school was full of Hispanic kids whose families celebrated the Twelve Days of the Christmas season, all the way to the “Feast of the Three Kings” on January 6. It was a family joke that most people who sing “The Twelve Days of Christmas” never actually celebrate them—or even know when they are! We’re empty-nesters now, but to this day my kids expect our tree to go up just before Christmas day and stay up through the whole season—and they still scoff at the sight of trees in the trash on December 27 or 28. I sometimes joke that our family Christmas customs are the one piece of Catholic identity our kids hang on to.

Back then, we were like John Parise—we were opposing the “commercialization” of Christmas too. Twenty-five years later, that outlook seems rather quaint to me. Now I don’t worry about commercialism spoiling Christmas. I worry about Christmas being replaced by something else—a generic time of year called the “Holiday Season.” Seems to me, this “Holiday Season” has taken on a life of its own, quite independent of any “holyday.” It runs all autumn long now, and peaks with a month-long buying spree that ends on December 25—the very day when the Christian Christmas season starts!

So the stores start selling “holiday” costumes and decorations at summer’s end, and more and more people set out orange holiday lights and ghoulish lawn decorations in anticipation of Halloween. By mid-October, Christmas stuff goes on display, competing with Halloween stuff. Once the Trick-or-Treating ends, the real selling starts, and from then till year’s end people buy nearly 50% of all the retail goods sold all year, including more than 80% of toys and personal entertainment products, and nearly 90% of all jewelry.

This is no longer about exploiting a Christian holiday to make a little extra money. This is about the survival of Capitalism itself. It took the New Deal and World War II to end the Great Depression. It now takes the Generic Holiday Season to keep it from coming back. If some strange spiritual plague caused Christianity to die out within the next year, our consumer culture would have no choice but to continue the “Holiday Season” as usual.

The issue now isn’t that one of Christianity’s most sacred seasons might be profaned. After all, saying that the season is about “doing for others” may make it sound less commercial, but it doesn’t make it any more Christian.

Bear in mind that something like this has happened before. The Romans had a big winter festival, “Sol Invictus,” long before Christianity. December 25 was deliberately made “Christmas,” not because there were records of Jesus’ actual date of birth, but precisely to replace the pagan feast. What if we’ve reached the point in history where something else—a new sacred season called “The Holidays”—is replacing Christmas? That would explain why John Parise caught such flak when he made his “big mistake.” In a culture that increasingly avoids even mentioning Jesus in connection with “The Holidays,” Santa is a sacred idol in many families; exposing him as a myth is “cruel” because it breaks a sacred taboo.

The Romans were smarter, perhaps; at least their feast to the “Invincible Sun” worshipped something God created. Our culture has created its own idols: Santa, the mall, Capitalism itself.

So don’t blame the DJ for stealing Christmas. Or the Grinch. We’ve stolen it ourselves. For, just as the Romans were quick to quit their own traditional feast for the new Christian holyday, millions of American Christians are happy to join the new generic “Holiday Spirit”—provided nobody tells the kids the truth about Santa.

© Bernard F. Swain PhD 2003

#248: Does Christmas Have a Future?

This reflection on Christmas in our culture comes from 2008:

The “Second Battle of Lexington” rages on in 2008.

More than two decades ago the ACLU launched a campaign to remove nativity scenes from public property, and in 1998 that movement reached the very town green in Lexington, Massachusetts where the "shot heard round the world" opened the American Revolution.

For nearly 30 years, the local Knights of Columbus had placed in nativity scene on Lexington Green, but now some town officials were threatening to revoke the K of C’s permit. The K of C countered with a threat to sue, and a diverse group of religious leaders invited me to help them build a consensus proposal to resolve the dispute.

Early on, this group--including a Mason, a Catholic priest, three Protestant ministers, and a K of C member--agreed to stand firm on the K of C’s First Amendment right to display Christmas symbols on public land. Their logic: to restrict religious observances and activities to private land would exclude even religious processions--including funeral corteges traveling public roads from church to cemetery!

Their final plan offered the compromise of restricting the nativity display to a shorter period, while acknowledging that other displays (Menorahs, Kwanzaa symbols, even Santa and snowmen) might claim equal rights.

The Lexington Selectman ignored the offer and dodged the First Amendment issue by claiming a security problem with the permit, and requiring the K of C to post guards 24/7 throughout the display period. The K of C, unable to manage this, settled for a "Nativity Pageant" held on a single day.

At stake in this “Second Battle of Lexington,” of course, was the erosion of Christmas as a public event--erosion that has continued since 1998 as similar battles have erupted around the country, reaching a new intensity and range in 2008. As USA today reported just last week:

Christians and traditionalists across the nation, fed up with what they view as the de-emphasizing of Christmas as a religious holiday, are filing lawsuits, promoting boycotts and launching campaigns aimed at restoring references to Christ in seasonal celebrations.

From New Jersey to California, Christians are moving to counter years of lawsuits that have made governments wary about putting Nativity scenes on public property, and that occasionally have led schools to drop Christmas carols from holiday programs.

Examples abound. A Federal judge ordered Bay Harbor Islands (Florida) to allow a nativity scene next to a menorah following a discrimination lawsuit. In Denver, church members picketed the holiday parade after their Christmas-themed float was rejected. A California group boycotted Macy's stores, claiming their parent organization had forbidden clerks from saying "Merry Christmas." The Maplewood (New Jersey) school board face protests for dropping even instrumental Christmas music from school programs. Parents in Mustang (Oklahoma) defeated a school bond referendum after nativity scenes were dropped from school holiday programs. Members of a church in Kansas City (Kansas) protested the secularization of Christmas by dressing like Jesus at their jobs, malls and restaurants.

What's going on here?

This battle is hardly new. In fact, disputes over Christmas predate the First Battle of Lexington. In puritan Massachusetts, the General Court banned Christmas observances in 1659 lest they compete with the Sunday Sabbath. Even taking the day off work was punishable:

Whosoever shall be found observing any such day as Christmas or the like, either by forbearing of labor, feasting or any other way . . . shall pay for every such offense five shillings, as a fine to the county.

Of course, while this ban was anti-Christmas, it was not anti-Christian; ironically, Lexington's first parish church was, in fact, originally built on the very Town Green where a crèche is now banned.

But over the centuries much has changed, and in recent years Christmas has become a lightning rod for the Americans who differ about the place of Christianity in American life.

Moreover this history of US conflicts over Christmas fits into a larger, longer history: the long-term evolution of Christmas in Christian tradition itself.

Early Christians did not have a feast day for Jesus’ birthday, until the need to compete with the Roman winter solstice festival "Sol Invictus" ("Unconquered Sun") required a distinctively Christian symbol for winter’s shifting from darkness to light. Designating December 25 as Jesus’ birthday fit the bill perfectly.

Subsequent centuries saw a modest feastday gradually expanded by the medieval period’s devotion to Mary, by Saint Francis of Assisi’s introduction of crèche and animals to the Christian imagination, by the focus on Saint Nicholas (later Santa Claus) and the custom of gift-giving that opened the door to today’s “Christmas Capitalism.” German, English, and French customs all melted into the Christmas we know now, replete with trees, wreaths, stockings, and carols. And the dominance of Europe in this evolution led to Christmas as a winter festival, though most Christians today live--as the first Christians did—in lands where Christmas falls amid mild weather or even during summer .

So unlike Easter, which has anchored Christian faith from the beginning, Christmas has not been a constant or essential fixture in Christian history. Generations of Christians managed quite well without any Christmas at all.

Yet for many American Christians, Christmas has come to overshadow Easter.

Children clearly anticipate Christmas stockings and presents more than Easter clothes and candies. Grownups spend weeks or even months in shopping and decorating. "Baby Jesus meek and mild" has more popular sentimental appeal then Jesus the itinerant preacher, Jesus the suffering victim, or even Jesus the Risen Lord. Many Christians confuse the birth of Jesus with the Incarnation of God into human form (more properly linked with Jesus’ conception, and officially observed on March 25). Santa has become such an object of faith that speaking the truth--that Jesus is the real part of Christmas, and Santa is the fun make-believe part--is a public taboo, to the point that many people link the loss of Santa with a loss of innocence or even a loss of faith.

And the marketplace's frenzy over Christmas has made Christmas more about “giving” than about embracing the Peace Jesus promised. Thus Christmas season has become so exhausting that, since many Americans are so tired of celebrating by Christmas Day, we often see trashed Christmas trees on the curb as early as December 26th.

In other words, we have largely lost the wise psychic rhythm of the Christmas liturgical tradition, which used Advent for quiet preparation and then celebrated Christmas beginning December 24th. For most, Christmas Day now ends the Christmas season rather than beginning it, and most Americans hear “The Twelve Days of Christmas” without knowing when they are.

Is this kind of Christmas really worth saving for the future? And is that even possible? For me, a few things seem evident.

One: “Christmas” in America will become increasingly detached from the cultural customs the protestors are trying to protect. Millions of Americans will celebrate Christmas with little or no reference to the birth of Jesus, and even the number of “Christmas Catholics” will dwindle.

Two: Ironically enough, Christmas Day will remain a legal holiday, simply because our economy cannot survive without it. Even during boom times, this season brings 40% of retail sales and nearly 80% of toys and entertainment sales. Without Christmas, American capitalism collapses.

Three: The “holiday season” will continue to evolve toward a generic celebration of winter’s shift from darkness to light, embracing symbols from Christmas to Chanukah to Kwanzaa to other symbolic traditions.

Four: Christians who maintain “the reason for the season” will find themselves increasingly a minority whose observance of Jesus’ birthday is the exception to the cultural rule—but Christians will also find that asserting their right to celebrate Christmas publicly will gain respect as a key proof that America is evolving a new identity as a nation simultaneously religious and pluralized.
In that sense, we will have won the battle for the future of Christmas.

© Bernard F. Swain PhD 2008

# 154: Spooked by the Season

My reflections on the place of Christmas in our culture have become a nearly annual tradition in CrossCurrents, so during the Advent season I am re-issuing several pieces from past years before posting my latest thoughts. This first selection is from 2006:

Christmas …has evolved: what began as a pagan feast was later “baptized” and adapted to a Christian world view, giving new meaning to the observance while obscuring its non-Christian origins. But a third stage has now emerged, whereby “baptized” celebrations get “commercialized” by consumer/capitalist culture in a way that obliterates both their pagan roots and their Christian meaning.

Like much of pagan religion, the original observance celebrated a seasonal fact – namely, the winter solstice. Thus the Roman feast of “Sol Invictus” (the invincible sun) marked the late-December phenomenon of days beginning to grow longer, celebrating their promise of spring and renewed life.

Christians chose December 25th to celebrate the birthday of Jesus, not because they had some historical record of the actual date of his birth (they did not), but because it seemed a perfect substitute: in place of “the invincible son,” Christians offered “the eternal Son of God.”

Of course, it’s no secret that modern America has totally transformed formed Christmas into the major commercial event of the year. Our culture has become so dependent on the “holidays” spending orgy that our economy would collapse without it.

…

This is one more example of the dumbing down of our popular culture: something that was rich in historical and human symbols has been reduced now mainly to one more spending spree. Could it be history’s revenge: what Christianity once did to paganism, Capitalism has now done to Christianity?

When I started out in Church work, troubled by the trend to commercialize Christmas, I wrote an article for parish catechists proposing that we “Give Christmas Back to the Pagans.” Now I think it’s too late for that, because I don’t think Christians really control Christmas anymore.

Perhaps it’s time for Christians to acknowledge that we no longer control the symbols of popular culture. If so, we must face up to the responsibility of celebrating our own symbols as a richer, more meaningful alternative to the newly dominant ones.

© Bernard F. Swain PhD 2006

#341: Warfare—or Justice?

As Warren Buffet makes the rounds promoting his new book, the old issues re-surface. So I am replaying this post from September 2011:

More than a year before the next presidential elections, the battle lines are already being drawn--and one phrase in the air seems likely to command increasing attention over the next 12 months. That phrase is “class warfare.” It’s a charge already being leveled against people as diverse as President Obama, billionaire Warren Buffett, and Harvard professor Elizabeth Warren. And it strikes me that this phrase offers a timely, even a perfect test-case for Catholic voters.

We Catholics now represent the largest “swing” voting group in the country. In 2004, Catholic John Kerry lost that swing to George W. Bush, but in 2008 Obama won the Catholic majority from John McCain. In both cases, the Catholic vote swung to the winner. So now when we hear talk of “independent voters,” we can think “Catholic voters.” And I like to think this means “independent-minded” as well. I would hope Catholic voters are Catholics first, and party supporters second--that our Catholic values trump party platforms and political preferences.

But it wasn’t so long ago that Catholic voters were largely working class, and many of them knew class warfare up close and personal (think “No Irish Need Apply”). And since the Democratic Party was, in the public’s eye, the workers’ party, Catholics were often bloc Democratic voters. In 1960 JFK won 80% of the Catholic vote.

Since then, Catholics have changed their class profile, emerging as among the best-educated and best-paid groups in America. The class profile of the two major parties has also changed, so it’s understandable if Catholics get confused about the issues and struggle to link their faith to their vote. It’s no longer as simple as checking the ballot for (D) or (R).

And when people start talking of “class warfare,” that makes matters even more confusing. It’s a serious charge, and demands a serious response. To get the clarity informed voting requires, we need to ask two things: What does class warfare mean? What should we think about it?

“Class warfare” sounds a lot like “class struggle,” the Marxist label for the process of workers wresting the means of production from the owners. But in today’s U.S. politics, “class warfare” has become a code word, like “socialism,” for any proposal to redistribute wealth within the population, especially through government action and taxation. It’s not about the workers seizing control of factories and companies, it’s about how much of their personal wealth rich Americans get to keep.

So what are the facts about the distribution of wealth in the U.S.? And what does our Catholic faith tradition have to say about it?

Frankly, the facts are surprisingly simple and obvious. For the last 40 years, the U.S. gap between rich and poor has steadily grown, because real wages for most have failed to match inflation, while the wealthiest Americans have enjoyed soaring dividends, salaries, and bonuses. The U.S. bishops, a dozen years into this trend, were already expressing concern in 1983:

Our economy is marked by a very uneven distribution of wealth and income. For example, it is estimated that 28% of the total net wealth is held by the richest 2% of families in the U.S. The top 10% holds 57% of the net wealth. If homes and other real estate are excluded, the concentration of ownership of financial wealth is even more glaring. In 1983, 54% of the total net financial assets were held by 2% of all families, those whose annual income is over $125,000. Eighty-six percent of these assets were held by the top 10% of all families.-- (US Bishops Economic Justice For All [EJA] #183)

By 2010, the situation was even worse, as the gap just kept growing, according to a UC Berkeley analysis:

“In the economic expansion of 2002-2007, the top 1% captured two thirds of income growth.”As others have pointed out, the average wage of Americans, adjusting for inflation, is lower than it was in the 1970s. The minimum wage, adjusting for inflation, is lower than it was in the 1950s…On the other hand, billionaires have never had it better. --http://integralcatholicsocialteachings.blogspot.com/2009/08/income-inequality-worst-since-1917.html

Is anyone who criticizes this trend engaging in “class warfare”? I suppose that is mainly a question of definitions, but let’s suppose we accept “class warfare” as the label for a debate about income distribution, income inequality, and income redistribution? In that case, two things stand out.

One, there are fighters on both sides: those defending the poor, and those defending the wealthy. Second, there seem to be two sets of rules. Those on the “poor” side are attacking the behavior and special treatment the wealthy get (Warren Buffett called it “coddling”) to urge a change in the status quo. But the “wealthy” side has been attacking the character of the poor as a way of blocking any change.

Thus one TV commentator describes this as a war of the “productive classes” attacked by the “moocher classes.” John Stossel likewise sees a conflict between the “makers” and the “takers.” Another pundit refers to welfare recipients as “parasites.” Nebraska Atty. General John Bruning compares “stupid welfare recipients” to scavenging “raccoons.” Ann Coulter argues that the U.S. welfare system creates “generations of utterly irresponsible animals.” Even warfare has rules, but so far only one side is playing fair.

So given the facts about U.S. wealth and the way people are fighting over it, what are Catholic voters to think? Once again, the answer is surprisingly straightforward. In a word: Catholic Social Doctrine has consistently opposed wide income gaps between rich and poor, and has consistently approved actions to redistribute wealth. Leo XIII first set this position in 1891, and he was seconded in 1931 by Pius XI:

Each class, then, must receive its due share, and the distribution of created goods must be brought into conformity with the demands of the common good and social justice. For every sincere observer realizes that the vast difference between the few who hold excessive wealth and the many who live in destitution constitute a grave evil in modern society-- (Quadragesimo Anno #58).

Vatican Council II (1962-1965) repeated the same basic position:

Excessive economic and social inequalities within the one human family, between individuals or between peoples, give rise to scandal, and are contrary to social justice, to equity, and to the dignity of the human person, as well as to peace within society and at the international level--(Gaudiam Et Spes #29).

This position reflects a main principle of Catholic social teaching: “The Universal Destination of Material Goods,” and this combines with another principle, the “Preferential Option for the Poor,” as the U.S. Bishops explained in 1983:

As individuals and as a nation, therefore, we are called to make a fundamental "option for the poor". The obligation to evaluate social and economic activity from the viewpoint of the poor and the powerless arises from the radical command to love one's neighbor as one's self. Those who are marginalized and whose rights are denied have privileged claims if society is to provide justice for all. This obligation is deeply rooted in Christian belief.-- (EJA #87)

These two principles establish “Catholic” economic priorities that many Catholics have never been taught:

The needs of the poor take priority over the desires of the rich; the rights of workers over the maximization of profits; the preservation of the environment over uncontrolled industrial expansion; the production to meet social needs over production for military purposes.-- (EJA #94)

This leads to a clear Catholic mandate to support changes, even government policies, that redistribute wealth:

Authentic economic well-being is pursued also by means of suitable social policies for the redistribution of income which, taking general conditions into account, look at merit as well as at the need of each citizen.--(The Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Catholic Church #303)

Does this mean the Catholic Church has been waging “class warfare” since 1891? I think not. Instead, I agree with the U.S. Bishops in saying:

The "option for the poor," therefore, is not an adversarial slogan that pits one group or class against another. Rather it states that the deprivation and powerlessness of the poor wounds the whole community. The extent of their suffering is a measure of how far we are from being a true community of persons. (EJA #88)

From the Catholic viewpoint, this is not class warfare; this is a fight for justice. And, as Pope Benedict XVI proclaimed in his very first encyclical, God Is Love: “The Church…cannot and must not remain on the sidelines in the fight for justice.”

So each of us must ask ourselves, and even each other, the next question: if the fight for justice is underway, which side are you on?

©Bernard F. Swain PhD 2011