What’s on My Mind? Read on!

When we were homeschooling our kids, my motto was always, “attention to detail.”  I said it so many times I expect they were able to drown out my voice after awhile!  But I am a firm believer that paying close attention to details is very important.

Today, I still practice what I preach, but I am the first to admit we simply cannot get it right all the time.  Typos happen to the best of us! You may call my “attention to detail” a blessing, or maybe even a curse, because I can get frustrated to no end when I read something reported in the newspaper on a religious topic and the reporter misses the point.

Having done freelance writing, I am no stranger to the reality that the article you file can be touched by so many hands that details can be lost, but you can tell when accuracy and research is lacking from the start.

A couple of recent instances caught my attention.  I suppose most people would just gloss over them, but I get a little touchy when it comes to proper language on topics of faith.

On the Sunday following Ash Wednesday, our local paper had a nice picture and a short article about our local Catholic school students receiving ashes.  Kudos to the paper for its highlight!

But, as I was reading the article, which overall referred to Christians in general celebrating the first day of Lent, there were a couple of things I noticed.

After identifying our Catholic high school students and speaking about the Mass and naming the priest, the reporter described the Mass as an “hourlong service, filled with prayer and Bible readings.”

Now, granted, column space is limited, but the description was seriously limited. Almost offensive, actually.  Perceptive Catholics know that the Mass is not just a nice service with prayer and bible readings (although it does include those.) 

The Catholic Mass is a sacrament where Christ is made present in the Eucharistic sacrifice.  Although this was surely an innocent, albeit ignorant mistake, descriptions like the one given in the article tend to seep into our culture and contribute to the watering down of our faith.

Catholics who did not take note of this description of the Mass may already be susceptible to this watering down.

The famous author Flannery O’Connor once (bluntly) said, in defense of a comment about the sacred host being a pretty good symbol, “Well, if it’s a symbol, to hell with it.”  You could say the same thing about the Mass.  If the Mass is nothing more than prayer and bible readings . . .

Then, as the article went on, it defined Ash Wednesday for many Christians, as a time when they often begin by “marking a Lenten calendar, praying a Lenten daily devotional, and abstaining from a luxury that they will not partake of until Easter arrives.”

Oh my.  I suppose I shouldn’t be surprised that this secular summary of Lent stays on the surface, but honestly, the last thing we need is for anyone (including Catholics!) to think that lent is about giving up a luxury that we will return to on Easter!

What would be the point to that?

These forty days of penance offered through prayer, fasting and almsgiving are not simply an act of tolerance that we bear so we can turn back to our old ways once Easter has arrived.  They are days of conversion as we grow closer to God and turn away from sin.  They are a deeply spiritual time, not a 40 day pause!

I know, I know, give up candy and gorge yourself on Easter; we’ve all done that, but that really doesn’t have anything to do with the 40 days of Lent.  Easter is a time to celebrate, for sure, and that’s why people tend to return to their previous ways, but if we are turning away from sin, we should think deeply about what we are doing and why.

So while I am ranting about this stuff that you might think is trivial, in the same paper on the same day, Morgan Freeman (the actor) was highlighted for his series The Story of God.  Admittedly, I might have caught part of one of the episodes, once, but the quote attributed to him really got me tied in a knot.

It said, quoting him, “Whatever I believe, I believe. Whatever you believe, I cannot say you’re wrong in it.  You cannot say I’m wrong in my belief.  My belief is my belief.  Your belief is your belief.  We’re all entitled to it and we’re all correct.”

Now re-read that quote and tell me what is wrong with it.

Heaven help us.  If you were nodding in agreement with him, because what he supposedly said sounded reasonable, I dare say you are a victim of the culture through which you have received a faulty education, and you are definitely not alone.

We want to accept what he said as truthful, because we know that the ingredients of our personal belief system may differ from those of our neighbors, so it seems logical.  Where he really falls off the rails is the very last sentence.

He draws an impossible conclusion:  “we’re all correct.”

We cannot all be correct.  Shouldn’t our belief system be based on an absolute truth? Why would I believe it otherwise?

And if my belief is based on an absolute truth, how can there be multiple absolute truths?

Let’s look at this as an example:

I believe abortion kills.

You believe it does not.

We simply cannot both be right about what the act of abortion does.  No matter what we believe independently, it does not change the fact of what the act of abortion does.  We simply cannot all be correct.

Because Freeman has traveled the world and talked to lots of people from different religions, he has drawn his conclusion.  I agree with respecting how other people think, but concluding that “we’re all correct” is erroneous because it is an impossibility.

He is quoted again in the article, saying “I don’t judge because nobody is wrong.  That one word covers it all:  faith.”

We should respect each other.  We should listen and dialogue with each other.  Respect, listening and dialoguing helps us, hopefully, be free of personal attacks and judgments.

But to conclude that everybody’s right cannot be correct.  It is simply illogical.

Janet Cassidy

Janetcassidy.com