This Centuries-Old Church Was Just Bulldozed

Here is a bizarre, and indeed sad, bit of news to start your Friday.

It appears that the citizens of San Pablo del Monte, in the Mexican state of Tlaxcala, have some rather strange ideas. Last weekend, they decided to demolish the 18th century Franciscan chapel of Santo Cristo. Yes, you read that correctly. The entire pasted-colored Spanish colonial chapel – bell towers, dome, et al – was completely razed by bulldozers early in the morning on Tuesday, with no word to either government or religious authorities.

The bishop of Tlaxacala, Francisco Moreno Barrón, has called the demolition an act of “barbarism”, which was not authorized by the diocese. In response, the Governor of Tlaxacala announced at a press conference that, in cooperation with federal authorities, he has filed charges against the person or persons responsible for the illegal destruction of the chapel. The action seems all the more surprising, in that the region is known to be a deeply devout Catholic area, so there is no suggestion that leftists carried out the action.

At present, local police believe this was an act of ignorance, which grew out of the combination of two rather unfortunate ideas. Some residents were concerned that cracks in the chapel walls indicated that it was in danger of collapse, and therefore razing the building was a matter of public safety. However authorities from the National Institute of Anthropology and History, the federal agency charged with historic preservation of Mexico’s cultural patrimony, say that the building was structurally sound, and pointed out that any building more than a century old is bound to have some cracks in it which do not affect the integrity of the structure.

In addition, while it may not have been the initial justification for the demolition, ultimately locals may have supported it because it was commonly felt that the chapel blocked the view of the parish church across the street.  Said building is a comparatively more modern confection, in terms of construction date, which looks something like a child’s idea of a castle in the Alps. As one can see in the photographs accompanying the news reports, it was certainly a far better candidate for demolition than the Franciscan chapel.

Although the goal of historic preservation can create annoying procedural norms for developers, architects, and officials to follow, this latest example of what happens when it is ignored is a potent reminder of why enforcing such measures continues to be necessary, and why they ought to be taken seriously. Whether the destruction is as vast as that of Penn Station in Manhattan, or as small as that of this side chapel on the road to Veracruz, when we intentionally destroy beautiful and historic buildings, we irreparably lose an important part of who we are. These structures are not simply utilitarian combinations of materials expressing particular aesthetic views. They are places touched by the lives of those who built them, and those who passed through them, decade after decade, century after century. As such, they are one of the very few tangible connections we have to the past. When they are lost, they are lost forever.

image

Go Put Your Pants On

A week or two ago I noticed a rather disturbing trend among men here in the Nation’s Capital, something which I had read about in several publications, but until then I had not noticed on our sidewalks: the trend of wearing a shirt and tie to work…with shorts.

Now let me begin this post with a caveat. As an attorney, I admit that I work in a sartorially buttoned-up profession. I wear a suit most days, and always on days when I have scheduled meetings. On those days when I don’t have to meet anyone in person, I might wear a blazer or sports jacket, but always with a tie, dress shirt, dress shoes, and trousers. It would never occur to me to wear shorts to the office.

I also know that many professions allow for shorts, due to the nature of the work itself. A driver delivering packages, or a waiter serving tables at an outdoor restaurant, no doubt is grateful not to have wear long pants as part of his uniform.  Particularly in this swamp-like city, the ability to wear shorts to work can be a great blessing for those engaged in manual labor in the services and trades.

For those who work in offices however, I find the trend of shorts and ties ridiculous and incomprehensible. It lends an infantile air to someone who ought to know better than to imagine that other adults are going to take them seriously. Because to be frank, if you came into my office wearing shorts and a tie, I would from the get-go think there was something deeply wrong with you, even if I might not say it aloud.

In some ways, this trend is of a piece with the increasingly lackadaisical attitude toward men wearing shorts in cities in general. I am not quite sure when adult males collectively decided that what they wore to the beach was acceptable at the supermarket, as if they were only 11 years old and out shopping with their mommies.  And the overall laxity of standards in this regard is perhaps most irritating when it comes to church.

My Fellow Fisheaters: there is NO excuse for a grown man to wear shorts to Mass. None. If you are old enough to vote, buy cigarettes, and pay taxes, you are too old to wear shorts to Mass. Even then, I would suggest the cut-off date probably lies closer to the age you begin shaving.

I do not care how hot it is. I do not care what you are doing before or after Mass. I do not care that the church has no air conditioning, or that you are on vacation. In fact, the latter is something baffling that I witness at my downtown DC parish all the time, surrounded as it is by hotels. If you’re visiting someone else’s home for the first time for an indoor, sit-down supper – and in this case, the Supper of all suppers – why would you show up dressed for a volleyball tournament? Look at pictures of your grandfather attending Mass fifty years ago, and I guarantee you that there will be not a single one of him inside a church wearing shorts.

How did we get to the point where no one even thinks this is worth criticizing? It occurred largely because people are now deathly afraid to criticize, which of course is part of the reason we have grown a large crop of infantile males who would want to dress like this in the first place, over the last few decades. It is also because we have forgotten the difference between style and fashion.

Style exists in tandem with, but ultimately independently of, fashion. Cuts, colors, and fabrics can change from season to season, as they go in and out of fashion. Yet style changes more slowly, developing as one ages. I could never pull off a leather jacket when I was a fresh-faced kid; now that I’m more weathered, I could never pull off a shirt and tie with shorts – nor would I attempt to. In what I choose to wear, I send a message; if I choose well, the viewer appreciates the clothes, but appreciates me, more.

What’s the message a grown man in shorts and a tie is trying to send as he clomps along in dress shoes without socks – I’ll save that pet peeve for another time – to those who see him on the street? That he may technically be an adult, but he would rather be in Kindergarten? That it’s better in the Bahamas? That he’s a member of a Boyz II Men cover band?

There is certainly a place for shorts in a man’s wardrobe, no one is questioning that. Not everything that is older is better: I would never suggest you play tennis in the summer in white flannels, for example.  Rather, the real point of inquiry is where and when the place for wearing shorts may legitimately be found. The answer will vary based on the activities you perform, and the environment in which you perform them.

However as a general rule, gentlemen, I am going to keep this simple for you. Please do not wear shorts with a tie. Ever. And more to the point, when you’re planning to see your bank manager, your attorney, or most importantly God, please go put your pants on.  

image

Shorter Pope Francis: I’m All About That Bass

This is a wonderful opportunity for me to gain your attention through the use of an – admittedly terrible – pun, but now that I have done so, I hope the reader will indulge me and allow me to explain my choice of title a bit later in this post.

The release of the much-anticipated Papal Encyclical “Laudato Si” today did not disappoint. In it, as there should be, is plenty of material to make everyone feel uncomfortable, in the ways we live our lives and in the ways we treat one another. It also reveals both a weakness and a strength of the present Pontiff as a thinker and a writer.

While a significant portion of the document reads like a journal article assembled by a group of graduate students, the more interesting turns and jabs in the Encyclical are not what most of us expected – certainly not this scrivener, anyway. To not be able to anticipate, as one reads, how Pope Francis is going to reach some of the conclusions he does, many of which were quite surprising, makes this more readable for the average person than most papal encyclicals. What one comes away with is the impression that whatever his views on the environment, the economy, and human relationships, the Holy Father believes that the malaise we see at present comes not from a single political philosophy or economic practice, but rather from a particular attitude, one which has severely damaged Western civilization in particular: selfishness. This encyclical is perhaps the greatest indictment of the “Me” generation, and all of its policies and excesses on both the right AND the left, which we have seen to date.

While major news outlets are falling all over themselves to quote the Pope’s writing on those aspects of ecology which they themselves support, they will at the same time be ignoring those portions of the encyclical which directly attack their views. Take for example that sacred cow of the left, “reproductive health”, i.e., the right to poison oneself – and indeed everyone else’s water supply in the process – with artificial hormones and other chemicals, so that one does not have children, alongside the right to kill unwanted children if they are conceived. The Holy Father offers no quarter to those who attempt to justify such policies based on environmental arguments:

50. Instead of resolving the problems of the poor and thinking of how the world can be different, some can only propose a reduction in the birth rate. At times, developing countries face forms of international pressure which make economic assistance contingent on certain policies of “reproductive health”. Yet “while it is true that an unequal distribution of the population and of available resources creates obstacles to development and a sustainable use of the environment, it must nonetheless be recognized that demographic growth is fully compatible with an integral and shared development”. To blame population growth instead of extreme and selective consumerism on the part of some, is one way of refusing to face the issues. It is an attempt to legitimize the present model of distribution, where a minority believes that it has the right to consume in a way which can never be universalized, since the planet could not even contain the waste products of such consumption.

Similarly, for those who believe that grinding up human embryos for pharmaceutical research, or aborting children who will be born with birth defects, are moral examples of the ends justifying the means:

117. When we fail to acknowledge as part of reality the worth of a poor person, a human embryo, a person with disabilities – to offer just a few examples – it becomes difficult to hear the cry of nature itself; everything is connected. Once the human being declares independence from reality and behaves with absolute dominion, the very foundations of our life begin to crumble, for “instead of carrying out his role as a cooperator with God in the work of creation, man sets himself up in place of God and thus ends up provoking a rebellion on the part of nature”.

Also:

120. Since everything is interrelated, concern for the protection of nature is also incompatible with the justification of abortion. How can we genuinely teach the importance of concern for other vulnerable beings, however troublesome or inconvenient they may be, if we fail to protect a human embryo, even when its presence is uncomfortable and creates difficulties? “If personal and social sensitivity towards the acceptance of the new life is lost, then other forms of acceptance that are valuable for society also wither away”.

And:

136. On the other hand, it is troubling that, when some ecological movements defend the integrity of the environment, rightly demanding that certain limits be imposed on scientific research, they sometimes fail to apply those same principles to human life. There is a tendency to justify transgressing all boundaries when experimentation is carried out on living human embryos. We forget that the inalienable worth of a human being transcends his or her degree of development. In the same way, when technology disregards the great ethical principles, it ends up considering any practice whatsoever as licit. As we have seen in this chapter, a technology severed from ethics will not easily be able to limit its own power.

Admittedly I did not engage in an exact word or paragraph count, but as I was reading the Encyclical it struck me that Pope Francis – that supposedly permissive, squishy-on-morality pope – spent more time castigating moral relativism, abortion, contraception, and embryonic stem cell research, than he did addressing the issue of climate change. Oh, and Mr. Limbaugh, for your edification, should this find its way to your desk (emphasis mine):

144. A consumerist vision of human beings, encouraged by the mechanisms of today’s globalized economy, has a levelling effect on cultures, diminishing the immense variety which is the heritage of all humanity. Attempts to resolve all problems through uniform regulations or technical interventions can lead to overlooking the complexities of local problems which demand the active participation of all members of the community. New processes taking shape cannot always fit into frameworks imported from outside; they need to be based in the local culture itself. As life and the world are dynamic realities, so our care for the world must also be flexible and dynamic. Merely technical solutions run the risk of addressing symptoms and not the more serious underlying problems. There is a need to respect the rights of peoples and cultures, and to appreciate that the development of a social group presupposes an historical process which takes place within a cultural context and demands the constant and active involvement of local people from within their proper culture. Nor can the notion of the quality of life be imposed from without, for quality of life must be understood within the world of symbols and customs proper to each human group.

So now, finally, I can explain my choice of title for this piece. Much to the annoyance of those of other tongues who try to learn it, the English language has many homographs, i.e., words which when written appear to be the same, but when spoken have completely different meanings and pronunciations. Some examples are “wind”, “project”, and “lead”. Such is also the case with the word “bass”, which has several meanings: I shall focus on two.

In the natural world of course a “bass” is a type of fish. Given his strident advocacy in this Encyclical about caring for God’s creation, the Holy Father is all about that fish. He is also all about the birds, and the flowers, and the trees, and those slimy “things which creep upon the earth” from the Book of Genesis in the Bible.

However “bass” is also the word we use to describe a deep and powerful voice, most often exhibited by men. We often associate it with men of significant socio-political stature, or who are advanced in years and wisdom, or even with God Himself. One can hardly imagine the voice of God the Father, when heard at the Baptism of Christ, as being that of a tenor in sotto voce, even though we can also recall the voice of God in that “still, small voice” heard by the Prophet Elijah.

Pope Francis himself does not have a particularly powerful speaking voice, in part due to his only having one lung. And yet some of the language which he employs in this encyclical is of a rather profound, basso profoundo, take-no-prisoners quality. It comes as quite a surprise from someone who has been characterized since the beginning of his papacy as some sort of mamby-pamby, soft-spoken NPR host.

Take a look here:

67. We are not God. The earth was here before us and it has been given to us.…Each community can take from the bounty of the earth whatever it needs for subsistence, but it also has the duty to protect the earth and to ensure its fruitfulness for coming generations. “The earth is the Lord’s” (Ps 24:1); to him belongs “the earth with all that is within it” (Dt 10:14). Thus God rejects every claim to absolute ownership: “The land shall not be sold in perpetuity, for the land is mine; for you are strangers and sojourners with me” (Lev 25:23).

He’s quoting the Book of Leviticus at the end there, for those who do not know the abbreviation. LEVITICUS. Not a light-hearted romp through salvation history, that book – which should make some of us – myself included – very, very nervous.

Or this example:

75. A spirituality which forgets God as all-powerful and Creator is not acceptable. That is how we end up worshipping earthly powers, or ourselves usurping the place of God, even to the point of claiming an unlimited right to trample his creation underfoot.

Now perhaps it is just my point of view, but this does not strike me exactly as touchy-feely, wishy-washy, your-truth-and-my-truth stuff. In fact it is almost an echo of the preceding quote: God is God, and you most emphatically are not. Start acting like it.

For me though, the best example of how Pope Francis really is all about that bass appears in Paragraph 229. I would not have expected such a statement from such a pope, particularly given how he has been portrayed by the media on both sides of the political aisle since his election. In its directness and lack of sophistication, it is not going to convince any of the Holy Father’s more intellectual naysayers. In its rejection of the kind of solipsism which has become the sine qua non of Western culture, and indeed in its outright chastisement of what has happened to that culture, it is the kind of statement which one sometimes wishes one’s bishops would have the courage to say, and yet so often we are left having to say it for ourselves, as lay people:

229. We must regain the conviction that we need one another, that we have a shared responsibility for others and the world, and that being good and decent are worth it. We have had enough of immorality and the mockery of ethics, goodness, faith and honesty. It is time to acknowledge that light-hearted superficiality has done us no good. When the foundations of social life are corroded, what ensues are battles over conflicting interests, new forms of violence and brutality, and obstacles to the growth of a genuine culture of care for the environment.

Someone observed on my Facebook wall this morning that J.R.R. Tolkien, the deeply Catholic author of “The Hobbit” and “The Lord of the Rings”, would have loved this Encyclical. I would add, so would Pope St. John Paul II, Blessed Mother Theresa of Calcutta, and many others, who devoted their lives to advocating compassionate care for the world they were born into, and the people who live in it. Like them, Pope Francis is right to draw attention especially to the oppressed and the unwanted.

Now I must confess, gentle reader: I am still not a fan of this Pope. I find him tacky, unfocused, overly pedestrian, and lacking in grace. Yet this encyclical is quite a worthy shot across the bow of the moral relativism we ALL espouse to justify our selfishness. You cannot make short-term profits on the backs of the poor, any more than you can save the whales while killing the babies, and thereafter morally justify your actions in the eyes of God. As quoted above, when our society is so corrupted and falling apart that everything is relative – the profit motive, sexual morality, and yes, creation itself – then we have a very serious problem as a species. If this Encyclical made you uncomfortable, as it did me, then good: now go off and do something about that.

image