Intent

Sanctus, sanctus, sanctus

It's a phrase taken directly from the traditional Latin Mass but it's actually a direct translation of

קדוֹשׁ, קדוֹשׁ, קדוֹשׁ

which appears in the Jewish Bible. There are many other examples of similar appropriation of non-understood language from one tradition to another. It means “Holy, holy, holy,” but there are other examples of similar cultural appropriations, and this one was only chosen because of it's short length.

Does it matter if the supplicant doesn't understand what he is saying? I'm not a theologian and can only answer based on my own views, but I doubt it. (Vivaldi, who lost his ability to speak, expressed himself through his music.) If the supplicant's intent is proper, the language is irrelevant and, I believe, the act is judged on its own merits.

But the idea is not limited to religious thought. And the results it achieves are not immutable. People with honest and virtuous intents may disagree. Although there are some absolutes, their number is limited, and in most modern arguments both sides are right – at least in regard to some of the particulars. And if contemporaries disagree over “right” and “wrong” it is certain that past and future generations will question what we think, and how we decide and act.

If they can.

When tyrannical regimes in the Middle East destroy sites that others consider holy, we protest their action, even though its proponents believe that they are eliminating places of blasphemy, sacrilege, and immorality and they demolish whatever relics of it that they can find. Their intent is to improve rather than destroy. Yet we are outraged. When we are embarrassed or angered by an American past that includes slavery in our country, we destroy as many symbols of it as possible, including monuments and the names of those who supported or even tolerated it. Perhaps their intent was virtuous. Perhaps they were being honored for other acts, that is not relevant. We ignore their intent and their context and substitute our own. And, like tyrants elsewhere, we destroy our own history making it more difficult for future generations. We honor George Orwell's 1984 and Soviet historical revisionism.

Bad as such behavior may be when practiced by an individual, it is worse when it involves group action. If someone is convicted in the press of an alleged act, and others, with no knowledge of the act, wish to support the “victim,” their good intentions should be supported by a review of all sides of a story – not just the one reinforcers want you to hear. Yet that's what media groups, social and otherwise, prompt people to do – to convert uninformed good intent into mindless and forceful acts. Too often, for example, “good” people, with good intentions, demand freedom of speech, but are encouraged to protest when requested it is sought by others who disagree with their leaders. The “Right” of such a freedom devolves only on those with the “right” point of view.

Proper intent is necessary, but only if its inspired by information rather than incitement. Those who would use the good intents of others to add strength to evils which they wish to promote will be judged (according to your beliefs) by G-d or future generations.

Virtuous intent is to be praised. Well-considered virtuous intent based on your own beliefs and knowledge. (And those who would manipulate that virtuous intent are to be condemned.) The existence of virtuous intent is worthy of praise. The virtue of the act must be judged separately.

For example, in the summer of 1945, Harry Truman, having recently assumed the Presidency following the death of Franklin Roosevelt, authorized the atomic bombing of two cities in Japan, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, because of which it is estimated that 130,000 died immediately (with many more subsequently). Development of the weapon had been initiated by his predecessor, but Truman authorized its use. It brought to an end a war that had caused the deaths of tens of millions already, and damage and destruction to numerous cities and historic sites.

Truman's intent, to end the war while preserving the lives of many future combatants and civilians was achieved. The intent was worthy and the result was cheered at the time. There have been many questions raised subsequently about whether a similar result could have been achieved otherwise, but that is not for me to judge.

However I continue to believe that if the supplicant's intent is proper, it is understood; and the act itself is judged with this in “mind.” We may not live in the time and context of the act, and the imposition of our time's political correctness, or any other criterion, isn't appropriate.