The Reformation
Our Separated Brethren Defend
Christmas - An Unwitting Contradiction?
by Mark Bonocore
Here in the United States, the
most powerful and dynamic social ally of devout Catholics is,
without question, the evangelical Protestants. It is evangelical
Protestants who stand shoulder-to-shoulder with devout Catholics
in the struggle to defend life and safeguard the values of our
Christian civilization.
The Nature of the Celebration
It was the evangelical Protestants, more than any other group,
who achieved the re-election of President George W. Bush and his
administration’s stance against wholesale abortion,
“gay marriage,” and the like. And, just this Christmas,
the evangelical Protestants, in the form of activist groups like
Focus on the Family, once again displayed great valor and
determination in combating secular forces and their attempts to
exclude the celebration of Christ’s birth from schools and
other government institutions.
Indeed, while the Catholic Church may hold the moral and
institutional clout to be the leading voice for Christian
morality and traditional values, it is clearly the evangelical
Protestants who are our motivated, “crack troops”
— the zealous front line in the ongoing war for the cultural
heart and mind of America. So, while far be it from me, or any
other Catholic, to criticize or undermine the heroic efforts of
our evangelical Protestant brethren in this area, I would like to
present a friendly challenge to our beloved allies when it comes
to their defense of Christmas itself. For, as a Catholic
apologist who is constantly accused by the evangelical camp of
dabbling in “idolatry” and “vain ritual”
(a.k.a. the Liturgical customs and traditions of the Catholic
Church), it seems to me that our evangelical brethren are
contradicting themselves when they defend the celebration of
Christmas against those who would take it away from us.
As the name itself implies, “Christmas” (from an
ancient English derivation: “Christ’s Mass”) is an
intrinsically Catholic celebration — a liturgical feast
day of the Catholic Church, first observed in the West on
January 6th (the original date) in the year A.D. 336, and then
moved to December 25th some time in the late 400s. Now as all
scholars admit, both Protestant and Catholic, we simply do not
know what time of year Jesus was actually born. So, Christmas is
not, and was never intended to be, a commemoration of the
Lord’s historical birthday. Rather, like all other
liturgical feast days of the Catholic Church (e.g. the feast of
the Annunciation, the feast of Epiphany, or the feast day of a
particular saint, etc.), Christmas was designed to commemorate
(and institutionalize) an important aspect of Christian theology
— in this case, the dogma of the Incarnation: the reality
that God became man in the Person of the Holy Child of Bethlehem.
Yet why choose January 6th or December 25th? Why celebrate the
Nativity of the Savior in the middle of winter? Well, as history
records, the reason that the ancient Church chose this season was
to intentionally compete with, and so obscure and replace, a
number of pagan festivals celebrating the Winter Solstice
which fell on, or close to, the same dates.
The week before we celebrate Christmas is when the northern point
of the earth’s axis tilts furthest away from the sun. The
northern hemisphere experiences its shortest day of the year on
December 21 or 22 every year. Ancient people noticed that the sun
seems almost fixed in this position for several days around this
time, hence “solstice” or sun standing still. When the
sun began, from the perspective of earthbound observers, to
reverse course and the days to start to lengthen, this was seen
as cause for celebration, with the hope born anew that winter
would draw to a close and spring would arrive.
In our modern culture with electric lights and well-heated homes
the deep connection ancient peoples felt to these natural cycles
may be lost on us, but they were not lost on our Christian
forbears. The ancient Christians, therefore, seeking to
communicate their belief that Jesus is the “light of the
world” (Jn 9:5) chose to do so at a time when all peoples of
the Roman Empire would be able to see and appreciate such a
statement.
Vigorous in Defense
However, what of modern American Evangelicals? While a great many
of them are no doubt (like most modern Catholics) unaware of the
historical origins of Christmas, why do they subscribe to, and
zealously defend, a celebration that is so blatantly Catholic in
nature? For example, in response to this year’s secular
opposition to the Christian character of the season, a number of
evangelical voices have encouraged their followers to avoid
making the vain and politically correct statement, “Happy
Holidays,” but to be sure to say “Merry Christmas”
at every opportunity. However, in making that statement, do the
Evangelicals realize that they are endorsing the celebration of a
Catholic “Mass” (“Christ’s-Mass”) —
that is, a liturgical celebration of the Catholic Eucharist?
Evangelical Protestants see the Catholic Mass as, at worst, a
dangerous error (in which, they mistakenly think, we
"sacrifice Jesus again and again"), and, at best, as an
empty and fruitless "human ritual" which supposedly
distracts from effectively preaching the Gospel. This is one of
the main reasons why so many Evangelicals reject liturgy and
liturgical calendars. Yet, in saying “Merry Christmas,”
the Evangelicals are not only proclaiming the Catholic Mass to be
a good thing, but they are also recognizing the existence of a
liturgy and a liturgical calendar to which they do not subscribe.
In doing so, they are unwittingly honoring their own
Catholic heritage — that is, the heritage of the first
Protestant reformers who (inconsistently) retained the Catholic
feast day of Christmas when they parted ways with the Church and
its “distracting rituals.”
Indeed, this issue is especially significant when it comes to the
more extreme and radical elements of the evangelical Protestant
community — that is, those who see the Catholic Church as
the godless “Whore of Babylon,” and who believe that
Emperor Constantine and the 4th-century Catholic bishops tainted
their Christian worship with paganism, etc. Since the feast day
of Christmas was the product of this very time (initiated
officially only in AD 336); and, if 4th-century Catholicism
represents an abandonment of the true Gospel, then, once again,
why would an Evangelical of this mindset wish to preserve and
defend one of Catholicism’s feast days, especially when the
date itself has pagan roots?
It is not merely the date and name of the celebration that
Evangelicals are vigorously defending, but they extend their
defense to many Catholic elements of the celebration as well:
• Christmas carols: In a number of American public schools
this year, the singing of Christmas carols — that is,
seasonal songs that directly refer to the birth of Jesus —
has been prohibited on the grounds that they supposedly alienate
the non-Christian minority and violate "the separation of
Church and State."
In response, our evangelical brethren have spoken out boldly in
defense of singing such time-honored classics as “Silent
Night” and “O Come All Ye Faithful.” Yet most
Christmas carols were written for, and are, in essence, an
intrinsic part of, the Catholic liturgical feast. “O Come
All Ye Faithful,” for example, is merely an English
translation of the classic Latin Christmas hymn “Adeste
Fideles.” So, once again, in defending the singing of
these beloved carols, our evangelical brethren are actually
promoting elements of the traditional Catholic liturgy — a
liturgy that they otherwise reject and disdain.
• The Christmas tree: Related to their defense
of Christmas carols, many evangelical groups have also bitterly
opposed a move by the secular liberals in our nation’s
capital, whereby the traditional Christmas tree that stands on
Capitol Hill has been renamed “The Holiday Tree” —
an attempt to disassociate the tree from the name of Jesus
Christ. However, here, once again, the Evangelicals find
themselves in contradiction. For, the Christmas tree is also a
product of traditional Catholic devotion, being yet another
adaptation of an old pagan form — namely, a custom stemming
from the ancient tribes of Germany, who believed that their
nature gods dwelled within the evergreen (thus explaining its
ability to remain lush and alive during winter), and so brought
such trees into their homes and decorated them as shrines to
these pagan gods. When first evangelizing the German tribes, the
Catholic Church wisely permitted them to retain their native
custom, but merely revised and adapted it to stand for, not the
indwelling of some pagan god, but rather the eternal life that
Christians have in Jesus Christ. And so, like the solstice
itself, the evergreen was robbed of its ancient pagan meaning and
reborn as a Christian symbol. And it is of course this Christian
symbol that our evangelical brethren wish to defend.
In contradiction, however, these same Evangelicals are often
quick to condemn other Catholics forms that may be, or may seem
to be, drawn from similar pagan origins. We need to lovingly help
our dear brothers to see that they cannot have it both ways. If
pagan forms cannot be adapted or Christianized (with the old
pagan meaning replaced with a Christian one), then the
Evangelicals should be applauding the Washington secular
liberals, not opposing them, for renaming the Congressional
Christmas tree. We applaud them for rightly seeing this move as a
violation of their Christian culture. Gently we need to ask then
if they are willing to admit that Christian culture is
intrinsically Catholic.
• Nativity scenes: It seems that more than any other move to
secularize the Christmas season this year, the evangelical
Protestants have been outraged by secular liberal attempts to
remove nativity scenes from schools and other public venues. As
with Christmas carols, the liberal argument is of course based on
the "separation of church and state" and the claim that
nativity scenes somehow “victimize” non-Christian
citizens. And while we must certainly congratulate and encourage
our evangelical brethren for defending nativity scenes and
speaking out against such liberal nonsense, this nevertheless
represents yet another blatant contradiction when it comes to
what Evangelicals supposedly believe and what separates them from
us Catholics. For, as Catholic apologist John Betts points out,
aren’t the Evangelicals the ones who take the Old Testament
Commandment against graven images dead literally? Aren’t
they the ones who condemn Catholics for having churches filled
with statues and other religious images?
Now, an Evangelical might try to avoid this problem by claiming
that there is a difference between having a statue (such as in a
nativity scene) and venerating it or “praying to it.”
However, this is an empty argument for two important reasons:
Firstly, we Catholics do not pray to statues, but merely use them
as symbols and reminders, which of course serves the same purpose
as a nativity scene on someone’s lawn. And, secondly, the
Commandment, as written, does not forbid merely praying to a
graven image, but rather making or having one. So, if
Evangelicals are going to cite the letter of the Mosaic Law in
order to argue against statues in Catholic churches or homes,
then they of course must apply the same standard to nativity
scenes as well. Otherwise, they are being highly inconsistent.
As for nativity scenes themselves, one should not be surprised to
learn that these too are the product of Catholic devotion —
the first “Crèche” (a wooden manger holding a figure
of the Christ Child, flanked by figures of Mary and Joseph) being
invented by none other than St. Francis of Assisi in the early
13th dentury — that is, long after the establishment of
full-blown Catholicism and its supposedly “vain” and
“paganistic” ritualism. But, even so, this is the
tradition that Evangelicals are defending. Again, the question
must be asked: Why?
The Argument Comes Full Circle
In short, and as I initially said, we Catholics can only applaud
and admire our evangelical brethren for their bravery, their
passion, and their tireless commitment to defending the most holy
season of Christmas, in all its forms and expressions, against a
godless, secular liberal agenda that desires nothing less than
the destruction of the Christian Faith. However, at the same
time, our beloved allies must be called to account for their
inconsistencies, and hopefully be moved to appreciate the
importance of liturgical forms and their influence in and over
secular society. For, just as modern seculars are trying to
marginalize and/or adapt Christian forms to suit the demands of
their “religion” (for secularism is indeed a religion
unto itself), we Catholics did the same with the ancient pagan
civilizations of the Roman Empire, starting in about 320 AD. This
is the nature of the so-called “pagan” aspects of
Catholicism; and our evangelical friends would do well to
appreciate the fact that these forms now belong to them just as
much as they belong to us. For, it was the same Holy Spirit, Whom
we both worship, Who moved the ancient Church to adapt these
previously pagan forms for the glory and expansion of the Gospel.
Yet perhaps the issue would be better viewed this way: Assuming
that the secular liberals eventually succeed in eliminating
Christianity from American culture, would an Evangelical then say
that things like a “Holiday Tree” or the singing
non-religious Yuletide songs (e.g. "Frosty the
Snowman"), or wishing someone “Happy Holidays” is
in any way “Christian” in nature? If not, then why
should he assume that Catholic forms adapted from pagan culture
are still “pagan” or still retain their pagan
character? Again, our evangelical brethren cannot have it both
ways. Yet, perhaps in seeing their own Christian culture
threatened by hostile forces (i.e., the secular liberals), the
Evangelicals can appreciate why we Catholics hold so strongly to
our own, and come to see how close to Catholic culture they
themselves actually are.
May the Christ Whose birth we have all just celebrated bring us
together in the unity He intended for His followers.
Mark Bonocore
The Catholic Legate
January 15, 2005
__________________________________________
This article originally appeared
on Catholic Exchange.