In the wake of the murder of children during Mass in a Minneapolis church, various politicians excoriated people who expressed sympathy by sending “thoughts and prayers.” It’s not the first time politicians have taken umbrage at that expression, but let’s consider three aspects of their reaction: the centrality of politics, misplaced outrage, and their “theology” of prayer.
Politics are central
Politicians who complain about “thoughts and prayers,” especially after a mass shooting, most likely do so because, in their heart of hearts, they really don’t think prayer does anything. In that sense, they are breathing the gases of Karl Marx: religion promises pie-in-the-sky-after-you-die so that the powerless are diverted from taking on the power holders.
Marx, of course, linked that to outright atheism. Since that might not play well in parts of the country—especially when the votes of a few “deplorables” still “clinging to guns and religion” might tip a close race—we usually get some anodyne “spiritual” agnosticism. It’s the therapeutic voice that questions suffering without really believing it has any sense.
The anti-prayer politicians—liberals, mostly Democrats — doubt prayer will really do much to alter the landscape of how they see “haves” and “have nots” in America. What they want is palpable action and, for them, that means more gun regulation. Without getting into the constitutional or practical questions that raises, let’s just admit: for those politicians, “thoughts and prayers” are the NRA’s opium of the people.
This worldview makes politics central. The way you achieve things is by engaging in politics: speechifying, demonstrating, protesting, legislating, and regulating. That’s effective. Prayer is a diversion.
That’s why much of the American Left today has the appearance of a pseudo-religion, complete with creed, morality, rituals, and heresy police. The “I’m-spiritual-but-not-religious” instinctively feel the need for something to fill the human heart’s restlessness for the true good, but they don’t want to consciously embrace that Summum Bonum. So, they adopt politics as a substitute. It’s also why, in my opinion, many folks on X and TikTok post videos that make you question their grip on reality: they’re frustrated because their full-time pursuit of the “good” remains … frustrated.
It is frustrated because they want politics to do what it cannot do: save us. Politics will not take away the sins of the world. The mystery of evil remains, even if we try to soften that truth by talking about “senseless violence.” Evil will be eliminated not by dint of human efforts but only with the Second Coming, an act of God’s grace that completes the salvation about which much of the anti-prayer crowd is practically agnostic. That’s what William Buckley warned against in his famous line, “Don’t immanentize the eschaton!”
In other words, do not think politics will make the Last Judgment superfluous: salvation happens when “all are subjected to … and God will be all in all” (I Cor 15:28)—not sooner.
Misplaced outrage
“Outrage” is a grossly misunderstood reality. There’s a certain mindset among some Christians that it is intrinsically evil: the “good” Christian is always a Pollyanna, and so outrage” is “anger” and all anger is a sin.
Well, no. Not at all. A Christian ought to be outraged in the presence of evil. A Christian ought not to approach evil on the “live-and-let-live” basis of the dictatorship of relativism, which thinks even identifying evil as evil is … evil. We should oppose evil and some kinds of evil—such as murdering kids in a church—really ought to get our backs up.
Reagan Education Secretary Bill Bennett diagnosed this malady in the title of his book, The Death of Outrage. You may or may not agree with the book (Bennett was outraged that President Clinton committed adultery in the White House with a subordinate woman young enough to be his daughter and then lied about it to the whole country), but the concept is valid: we have ceased to be shocked by evil. We ceased to get sufficiently riled up about gross evil.
Consider: 60,000,000 babies have been brutally killed in this country since 1973. They have been dissected, suctioned, salt-poisoned, starved, had their spinal cords cut, been shot up with lethal cardiac drugs, and left to die in surgical buckets. And most Americans don’t think twice about it. Some even defend it. Some of the latter even call themselves “Catholic” while doing it.
So, yes, two children were murdered in Minneapolis. Since we have been treated to a selective viewpoint of which “lives matter” (given that “all lives matter” was seen by many on the Left as a “racist dog whistle”), one might ask the impolitic question: What bothers some people more—the kids murdered or the fact that guns were used?
If politics didn’t enter the picture, we wouldn’t see efforts to sanitize killers. A confused “transitioned” young man murdered those kids. Since “trans” folk are a protected category for the Left, it wasn’t long before the “we may never know the shooter’s motives” chorus kicked in. It’s a variant on the tune of whenever a guy named “Mohammed” blows something up or rams a car into a crowd: “We may never know what drove the shooter.”
Let’s also consider the venue of this murder: the children were killed in church during Mass. Sacrilege. The FBI rightly called it an anti-Catholic “hate crime.” (One wonders if the previous administration might have instead investigated “hate” against the shooter).
Minnesota and Minneapolis are a “sanctuary” state and city, de facto if not de jure. The very term “sanctuary” has been co-opted. “Sanctuaries” are the most sacred parts of churches, hitherto often demarcated by that piece of ecclesiastical furniture that triggers some bishops: altar rails. But as some churchmen have leveled the “sanctuary” (I am thinking of the chicken dance performed last spring in front of the altar of a German cathedral), politicians have seized it as their own.
With the concept “sanctuary” being taken over for political purposes—another manifestation of politics displacing religion discussed above—outrage about the violation of a church seems less full-throated than it should be. Honestly, I’ve heard greater outrage about illegal aliens being picked up in Home Depot parking lots.
The efficacy of prayer
Finally, critics of “prayers” have their own—and very wrong–“theology” of prayer.
It’s a variant of the old theodicy problem: there can’t be a god if suffering exists because that god should eliminate suffering. Similarly, if prayer doesn’t immediately yield the desired results, it impugns its efficacy, leading us back in a vicious circle to the idea that it is just a diversion from “real work.” (The fact that Protestant America prefers “real work” over prayer says something about the loss of core ideas of the classical Reformation.)
But prayer is not a magic talisman. Christ is clear that prayer “works” only with the prerequisite of “faith.” Faith, on the other hand, presupposes a readiness to accept God’s will for our lives, even if it is at variance with our wants and prayers.
Prayer is rarely a one-on-one correspondence: I ask for “A” and God delivers with the speed of Amazon Overnight. And because it lacks that clear, one-on-one correspondence, critics deem it inefficacious.
September 4th is the feast of the Blessed Martyrs of Nowogródek. They were eleven Sisters of the Holy Family of Nazareth Sisters shot by the Gestapo in a forest in what is now Belarus in 1943. They were taken on a Saturday night to local Gestapo headquarters, brutally interrogated, then driven the next morning to the woods where they were killed.
Why were they shot? The records are not clear, but perhaps it is a lesson in the indirect lines by which God makes prayer efficacious. Two weeks earlier, the Germans had arrested 120 men in the city, who might either have been killed or sent for forced labor to the Fatherland. Their women came to the sisters, begging for prayers. The sisters complied, praying together that “if a sacrifice is needed, take us, not these family men.”
Shortly after the sisters were murdered, the men were released.
One more variant. One of the sisters had, years earlier, planned on marriage and had a beau. She said that she had an inner voice telling her not to marry the man but to go to Grodno (the nearest big city), where “your Bridegroom is waiting, and he will give you a red dress for a wedding present.” When the sisters were exhumed after the war, their positions in the mass grave were such that the blood of them all poured on that one nun’s habit. The Bridegroom is always faithful.
Of course, some will dismiss those events as a coincidence, unconnected, and reflecting pious thoughts. Just like the nine-year-old Maximilian Kolbe’s vision of Our Lady and his wanting the white (virginity) and red (martyrdom) crowns she offered.
Prayer without faith may not be efficacious. Prayer with faith does not set expectations for God. That’s perhaps why it’s so much easier to put faith in politics.
I don’t deny that there are also sincere, committed believers who hold to faithful prayer who also want political action. But I think there are also those for whom “prayer” is at best a soothing, therapeutic notion signifying nothing about which sometimes they let the mask drop. And when it does, it does because of these three thoughts about prayer.
If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!
Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.
Thanks for this article – hard to beat for clarity and punch (as usual from Mr. Grondelski).
Good article, thank you. A couple similar thoughts of my own. The sick irony of this act being committed in a true sanctuary while in a “sanctuary state” for trans, which makes the state a breeding ground for this type of sickness and a super spreader as well.
Thank you. When public officials rebuke believers for praying, they also reject the prayer of the victims. What the politicians want is for us to pray to them to give us the City of Man. (St. Augustine)
We have seen this behavior before. After the Gospel reports the murderous betrayal and subsequent suicide of Judas, we read:
“Those who passed by derided (Christ), wagging their heads and saying, “You who would destroy the temple and build it in three days, save yourself! If you are the Son of God, come down from the cross.” So also the chief priests, with the scribes and elders, mocked him, saying, “He saved others; he cannot save himself. He is the King of Israel; let him come down now from the cross, and we will believe in him. He trusts in God; let God deliver him now, if he desires him; for he said, ‘I am the Son of God.’”
(Matthew 27: 39-43)
John, with all due respect, we must have both prayer and political action. In a democratic, representative form of government “speechifying, demonstrating, protesting, legislating “ etc. ARE necessary. Guns do kill and a healthy outrage about legislating against owning them is not evil. Being for gun regulation does not make one a political liberal. A constitutional amendment is just -an amendment; and amendments can be amended. They are not written in stone like the Ten Commandments. They are man made and can and should be changed when called for. Enough is enough. Christians don’t need a gun in one hand if they have a Bible in the other. Do those of you who advocate for the right to carry guns think all migrant farm workers should be armed? What about the many poor “illegals” who are being rounded up at work, on the streets, or in their beds at night? If a heavily armed gang of masked men were to come at you, should you be able to defend yourself before being deported to a place unknown without chance of due process? If you have teachers in schools who are armed, shouldn’t the students be able to able to be armed against a potentially violent teacher.? What guarantee do they have that he may not be a pathological deviant who may shoot them all ? The more”good” people who are armed, the more “bad” people will become armed; and as more people become armed, the more killings we will have. Period. Yes I am angry about another school shooting and I’m not trying to justify the actions of the shooter with psychological excuses. I don’t pretend to know his thoughts or motives; but I do know that he had legal access to firearms and that he used these legally gained firearms to kill both innocent people and himself. Perhaps, just perhaps these killings would never have happened if he did not have these weapons.
“Christians don’t need a gun in one hand if they have a Bible in the other.”
***********
I read that being armed was required for parishoners by some churches in colonial America because of Indian attacks. People literally came to church with a gun in one hand & a Bible in the other.
🙂
Different time, different situation.
This is a childish progressive perspective. Millions of people in the US own guns and use them responsibly. Access to guns is not the issue here, and you are simply parroting NPR talking points in saying so. Minnesota already has strict gun laws. The shooter was a deranged transgender progressive. That’s the recipe for disaster.
This seemsto pass judgement if not condemnation on a presumed class of “anti-prayerliberal pliticians” whose motives must be evil because they lack “faith.” Can’t we give them at least the benefit of doubt that they have hope which someone once defined, credibly, as “divinely inspired discontent.”
“The fact that Protestant America prefers “real work” over prayer says something about the loss of core ideas of the classical Reformation.”
I am a convert to Catholicism from Evangelical Protestantism. My late husband and I converted in 2004, and our two daughters and son-in-law have converted, too. Our only grandson was baptized Catholic.
I definitely agree with Dr. Grondelski’s assessment of the “Left’s” reaction to “thoughts and prayers.”
However, I don’t agree entirely with his statement “The fact that Protestant America prefers “real work” over prayer says something about the loss of core ideas of the Classical Reformation.”
I would agree that many of the Mainline Protestant denominations; e.g., Lutheran other than the Missouri Synod, Presbyterian, Reformed (both Christian Reformed and the Reformed Church in America), Methodists (ai yi yi!), United Church of Christ (not the Campbellite Churches of Christ/Christian Churches), etc., have “gone extreme woke and liberal”, even flying rainbow flags, hiring pastors and teachers of varying sexualities, and championing abortion rights, sex-change surgeries, etc., along with advocating open borders (but not necessarily volunteering to help settle the surge of immigrants, although some do).
I will give these “liberal” churches credit because they often maintain their churches and congregations in downtown areas that have seen much urban blight and departure for the suburbs, and are often ruled by street gangs, drug pushers and addicts, sex traffickers, thieves, and murderers. Because these churches are “on the front lines,” they are the ones who end up opening their doors and offering food, warmth, and shelter to the homeless and destitute during the extremely cold winter weather. Many of these churches also open up their churches and kitchens to children and teens who live in the downtown area for various after-school activities and quiet study rooms so that they will be off the streets and safe, warm, fed, and have help with any homework that they don’t understand. Meanwhile many of the Evangelical and non-denominational Christian churches are safe on the “good side of town” and free to continue to have activities that cater to the wealthier or at least, the “working” population of the city. I think that in spite of the liberal and often heretical/sinful teachings of their leaders, there are still plenty of genuine Christians in the “liberal” churches who are sticking it out with the hope and the prayer (!) that their church leadership will repent and return to orthodox Christianity.
I would encourage Dr. Grondelski to recognize that there are still plenty of Protestant churches that are strongly pro-life AND pro-prayer and are active in various pro-life activities and clinics. These Protestant churches specifically include many of the Baptists (there are many types of Baptists and some do tolerate pro-abortion rights), the Christian and Missionary Alliance, the various Campbellite (Christian) churches, the Assemblies of God and many other Pentecostal denominations, some (but not all) of the historically African American denominations, some Evangelical Free and Evangelical Covenant churches (Evangelical Free churches have no central governing organization to monitor them–that’s why they call themselves “free”–and therefore, there are E Free churches that have gone way off the traditional Christian tracks), the Missouri Synod Lutheran churches (a denomination which, sadly, seems to be fading out), and of course, the MANY non-denominational “churches” and fellowships (although it is important to be CAREFUL when attending these non-denoms, as some are definitely NOT orthodox or conservative when it comes to Christianity!)
When the Pregnancy Life Care Center opened a few decades ago in my home city in Illinois, most of the churches involved were all Protestant, even though the Catholics voiced support for this organization. However, a few decades later, the management and staff of the Pregnancy Life Care Center is almost entirely Catholic, although many Protestants volunteer and there are still Protestants serving alongside the Catholics on the Board of Directors. I think there have been conversions of Protestants to Catholicism as a result of their exposure to the committed pro-life Catholic Christians!
I think that many Protestants these days, including the pro-life Protestants that I cited above, are not as committed to their church and church life as they were in the past. Many have left traditional denominations, including the “evangelical” denominations, and have even started their own “home churches” consisting of their family only (I can understand why they do this, but I don’t think it’s what Jesus has in mind for Christians.) The Baptist church that I grew up with lost so many members and failed to attract new members and has merged with two other failing Protestant churches to form a “new” non-denominational church (that still allows the three churches involved to maintain their creeds, music, etc.). The huge “Open Bible” (non-denominational” church in my hometown that hosted a weekly TV show for decades has closed and has been trying with modest success for a few decades to start up new non-denominational church. The Covenant churches are pretty much closed, and the E Free churches–well, the one in the rich neighborhood is still going strong. The downtown churches, once huge and filled with the city’s richest citizens, are struggling to stay solvent–the influx of many LGBTQI+ people has helped the finances, but…at the cost of the orthodox Christians. The African American churches seem to be thriving, but one of the largest African American churches has moved to the “good side” of the city to escape the crime in a neighborhood that is ruled by street gangs. The Vietnamese Christian church is doing OK, but…I think a lot of their young people depart once they are of age.
Again, though, many Protestant churches, like Catholic parishes, are still committed to PRAYER, alongside of good works, study of the Scriptures, and working within their churches and fellowships to spread the Gospel of Jesus Christ. And because of the various social issues that have been corrupted by liberal politics and liberal church denominations, many Protestants are re-examining the Catholic Church and often end up “coming home to Rome!”
Thanks, Mrs. Whitlock for your very informed and balanced assessment of our “Separated Brethren “ I too am a convert from Protestantism and , like you, I value much of what many of them do and stand for. Yes, some of the most “liberal” of them are doing what we Catholics could be doing more of. It’s far easier to broad brush them as evil than to recognize the good ointment them. Perhaps if we got to know them better we could learn to love them as we are called to do. Thanks again, Mrs. Whitlock, and may God bless you and your family (including any who may still be Protestant).
Don’t know where the “ointment “ came from (auto fix or something) I guess. 😰 should read -the good in them.
Mrs. Whitlock above (8:39 a.m.) – Thanks for the rundown of the movements in various Protestant denominations.
One correction – There is an orthodox branch of the Presbyterian church.
Think Carl Trueman.