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.
