In the wake of tragedy, one often hears, “our thoughts and prayers are with the victims.” Recently, this seemly harmless bromide has been met with ridicule. While one expects any statement pertaining to faith to be attacked by atheists and agnostics, the phrase “thoughts and prayers” is now being held in contempt by religious people, including Christians.
One such example of a Christian criticizing “thoughts and prayers” comes from the Chaplin of the United States Senate. Following the murder of six people, three of whom were children, Chaplain Barry Black said, “Lord, when babies die at a church school, it is time for us to move beyond thoughts and prayers.” Chaplain Black is a Seventh-day Adventist whose statement is, ironically, in the form of a prayer.
To be fair, such criticism of “thoughts and prayers” is born of frustration with society and the political climate. However, many attacks on “thoughts and prayers” are efforts to ridicule people of faith or a failure to understand what is meant by “thoughts and prayers.”
When someone like Chaplain Black argues for “moving beyond thought and prayers,” he is advocating that action be taken to prevent such tragedies as what occurred in Nashville. I think that just about everyone would agree with that sentiment. What I would like to suggest, however, is that the lack of a contemplative, thoughtful, and prayerful society is the root of much violence and tragedy.
A note about terms: I am using the words thinking and contemplating synonymously. Within this paper, I wish both terms denote a process whereby one carefully and comprehensively considers a subject matter.
That said, I would like to argue that those who dismiss “thoughts and prayers” in favor of action are making two distinct errors. The first error is to dismiss thinking and praying outright, believing such an approach has no value or benefit. The second error is to take a either/or approach to the issue. Such a view argues that either one can think and pray or one can take action.
Both errors fail to take into account human nature as well as the nature of prayer. Using Aristotle’s time-honored definition, human beings are rational animals. As it refers to humankind, rationality is the ability to, among other things, use language and engage in abstract reasoning. Specifically, rationality refers to the capacity of humans to understand universals or the essences of things. For example, we can know that man is mortal without ever witnessing the death of every person. We know this because it is within the nature of a man to die.
Those dismissing “thoughts and prayers” fail to realize that action – including language – is a product of thought. To be human is to be rational; to be rational is to think. Action, or at least proper action, is a result of this rational capacity.
Much more controversial, I suspect, is to argue that human beings are also religious animals. In order to proceed on this point, it seems necessary to provide a working definition of religion and to argue that human beings are naturally religious.
Religion involves a moral virtue by which a person renders to God the worship and service He deserves. It is sometimes identified with the virtue of justice toward God. Religion is also a composite of all the virtues that arise from a human being’s relationship with God as the author of his or her being. (See Father John Hardon’s Modern Catholic Dictionary).
So much for a working definition of religion, then. But are human beings naturally inclined to be religious? A review of historical anthropology suggests that the answer is yes.
Religion appears to be a cultural universal found in all societies. Evidence of religious practices found in every culture includes feasts and festivals, intercession with God or gods, marriage and funeral services, music and art, meditation or initiation, and sacrifice or service. (See Fasching, Darrell J., et al. Comparative Religious Ethics. John Wiley & Sons, 2011.)
One may object to the premise that humans are naturally religious by pointing to our secular culture. However, religion need not include the worship of a transcendent God. The etymology of the word worship refers to what is of the highest value. Human nature is so construed that it seeks to worship the highest good (summum bonum) it identifies. From a Catholic perspective, that is the God of the Bible. From a secular perspective, the highest good generally comes in the form of pleasure, power, wealth, or fame. Is it no wonder that politics is the de facto religion of secularism?
Under the umbrella of biblical religion and worship comes prayer. Definitions vary, but one can say that prayer involves an acknowledgment of and a voluntary response to God. It is “The raising of one’s heart and mind to God or the requesting of good things from God.” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 2259).
Accepting that God is non-contingent, that is, that He requires nothing extrinsic to His nature, prayer must benefit those who pray if it is to have any meaning. Such a position is congruent with the belief that humans are naturally religious.
While it is possible to identify several reasons to pray, within the context of this paper, it is necessary only to show a moral benefit to praying.
The Catholic position is that Grace is a necessary condition of morality. (United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. United States Catholic Catechism for Adults. USCCB Publishing, 2006.) The reason that this is true lies in the fact that God is the source of objective morality. It is the human conscience, enlightened by Grace, that makes morality possible. Prayer helps expose the conscience to Divine Grace, enabling it to discern more clearly the good to be done and the evil to be avoided.
We live in an increasingly secular world that is also becoming more violent. There is, I would argue, a direct cause-and-effect correlation. Rather than disregard a contemplative and prayerful approach to such a world, we ought to insist upon one.
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In