Short Reflections on the Feast of the Cross

(Originally written in August 2005)

On 14 September the Church marks the Triumph of the Cross. In the Byzantine Churches the Feast is also called the "Exaltation of the Cross." A clue to the antiquity of the Feast is that both the Byzantine and Roman Churches celebrate the Feast on the same date. For many, the Feast may simply pass by without significance. Yet the history of this commemoration shows it to have significance even today.

St Constantine the Great legalized Christianity in 313 a.d. and showed great generosity to the Church. Indeed, many of our ideas about the very structure of a classical European church building are derived from the fact that Constantine donated imperial Roman government buildings to the Pope and Bishops for the celebration of the Divine Liturgy (Holy Mass). Such is the origin of the old Roman Basilica.

In 326, the mother of Constantine, St Helena, went on a pilgrimage to the Holy Lands. While there, she collected relics to distribute among the churches now springing up through the Empire. The inhabitants of Jerusalem told her that the site where Christ had been buried was a traditional local gathering place for prayer and worship. Going to the site, St Helena had workers begin digging, and ultimately three crosses were found. Legends provide two alternative explanations about how she chose the True Cross: 1) a dying woman was laid on each of the three crosses, and the True Cross healed her of her infirmity; 2) a corpse was brought forth and laid on each cross, the True Cross resurrecting him. However it was chosen, both St Helena and St Constantine were convinced that they had found the True Cross and a Church was built over the site, the Church of the Holy Sepulcher. The Cross itself was initially taken to Constantinople for the veneration of the faithful, and later divided up between the Church of Roman and several other important Christian Centers.

The importance of the Feast of the Cross lays not so much in the historic details of the finding of the True Cross. Eastern Catholic and Orthodox Christians observe the Feast of the Cross with a fast in honor of our Lord’s great mercy in dying for us and as firm reminder that our salvation is rooted in history. Christianity is not a religion of myths but a Faith in the One God who reveals Himself through historic circumstances. The hard reality of the Crucifixion confronts us with the undying Love of God and the suffering our Lord Jesus was willing to endure for our sakes. The unfolding of our salvation in history assures us that we are not just His creatures but His children, created in His Image and Likeness.

Take some time off this September 14th and go to Mass. Offer thanks to our Lord for the gift of salvation lifted up through the Cross unto Eternal Life.

Ship Without a Rudder

America has evolved to the point where decisions are determined based on public opinion. This method has not been debated but is assumed as the obvious consequence of the democratic ideal that is America. The American way is to decide an issue based on majority vote; the very system and heritage of the 'land of liberty' promotes this approach. In itself, this is not a bad thing. To the concern that a majority vote could lead to an immoral or dangerous result, we take comfort in the various checks and balances of the Federal system the center of our republic and our republican democratic ideal.

Yet when a culture is removed from the moral underpinnings of Faith, it is too easy for the 'safeguards' of the system to fail. Against the argument that Faith is restrictive and binds its followers to a narrow vision of life, we need only examine the opposite. Without Faith as a compass progress becomes directionless with every choice risking extinction.

However, it is sometimes charged Faith often does not provide the definitive answers society seeks. Instead of being the monolithic oracle that can answer every question, it is argued that Faith often fails to provide the compass-like guidance it proclaims, leaving society to grapple in a dark wilderness in search of answers.

Yet, it is not necessary that Faith should provide clear answers at the outset of a public debate; it is that Faith should guide the dialogue in discerning solutions in the public debate. If this obtains, the decisions of a society, guided by the moral reasoning of Faith, always result in a reality that is not only acceptable to the religious mind, but that is also revealed as ultimately inevitable and the product of firm of theological reasoning. The consistency and inner coherence of Faith guides without reducing human freedom. A society guided by Faith is a society guarded by reason, freedom and peace.

But what of a society that has cut itself off from Faith? Consider that "in the day" (as it is commonly phrased these days) it would have been unthinkable for abortion, divorce, gay culture, etc. to be considered normative, common and natural to the average person. It would be unthinkable to be confronted by ballot initiatives promoting this or that practice; practices formerly recognized as vices but today understood as liberties. In this reality Faith is not the temple of virtue and driving force of moral good producing guidance and security, Faith is the object of comfort and confirmation of utilitarian pursuits, driving personal gain and the elimination of true moral boundaries.

In a society where Faith has become a mere marketable product subject to the whims of fashion and devoid its power to transform superstition and irrational focus on the self becomes the sole motivating cause of change and ‘progress.’ In a culture where Faith itself is assailed and commanded to change and be changed by the shifting sands of public opinion that nation is set adrift, like a once mighty ship without a rudder.

In such a rudderless vessel, an argument founded in Faith seems unnatural, close-minded, and even blindly prejudicial. Without the "firm foundation" of Faith, society no longer voyages along the sea-lane of perfection but wanders the waters of wantonness. Without the moral absolutes of Commandments, the journey to justice is passed over for the meandering of immoral mediocrity. Without the Beatitudes there is only bareness, base utilitarian squandering of resources and the objectification of human personhood as prurient fodder for personal gratification. Ultimately, such a vessel must surely run aground. Its once might hull and mast crushed on the rock of a cold and angry shore. Without Faith society does not advance, it regresses.

Faith is essential for the true advancement of human society. Without Faith there is only wilderness, icy desolation and the isolated murmuring of existential nothingness. Instead of wholeness and transfiguration, we find only the empty desire for fulfillment and satisfaction. The emptiness of human existence, that unfulfilled life that finds no completeness or satisfaction in any experience, plods on seeking that which it can never have without the Divine.

That life which aches in the emptiness of the human life reduced to the meager existence of the animal;

That being created in a nobler image and hungering for Angelic Food which alone can nourish, while yet wasting away on the swill of debased debauchery;

That thirst which craves the Chalice of Immortality which only the One who shed His blood can give, while parched on the dregs of a cup fit only for the decaying decadence of degradation;

Lo, it cries out for a Savior.

Like the prostitute it clings to the feet of the One who alone can save while demanding to "go and sin no more."

Like the dead it awaits the One who alone can defy the conventions of modern imagination and issue the challenge, "Lazarus, come forth!"

Like the prodigal, it awaits the moment when it will come to itself and cry out "How many of my father's hired servants have bread enough and to spare, but I perish here with hunger!"

In that moment, there is repentance.
And in repentance there is hope.

In that turning, there is forgiveness.
And in forgiveness there is commitment.

In that renewed society there is salvation.
And in salvation there is love.

Respect for Life and the Dignity of the Human Body

From the beginning, when God created the universe and “saw that it was good”, He created humans “in the image and likeness of God.” (Gen. 1.25; 1.27) This ‘image’ is the source of our innate ability to love and be loved; it is essential to our humanity. It permeates our very existence allowing us to appreciate the beauty of a foggy morning sunrise, the grandeur of a thunder storm, the cadence of a melody, and the smile of a loved one. It is at the heart of the Church’s teaching on the sanctity of human life.

Life is a gift from God. Each human being is a unique creation of God, and so we not only respect life we cherish it. From conception to natural death, the human person has infinite worth precisely because he or she is created in the image and likeness of God. This is why we reject abortion, euthanasia and murder as contrary to the will of God – it kills a creature that has infinite dignity. To kill a human being, created in the image of God, is to reject God Himself.

In the Theology of the Body, the Great Pope John Paul II contrasts the spiritual beauty of intimacy in the love of husband and wife with the spiritual emptiness of wanton sexual license in the decadent pursuit of selfish physical indulgence. The one leads to life; the other to death.

Recognizing the dignity of the human person necessarily includes respect for the integrity of the human body. A sexual act devoid of this respect reduces a human being to a thing for one’s own sexual gratification and violates his or her dignity. It ignores personhood and idolizes the flesh for sexual pleasure.

Therefore, the Church denies the notion that sexual immorality is a ‘victimless’ crime. We particularly condemn acts that harm the young and vulnerable, and recoil against the abuse of children for debased sexual pleasure. We work to safeguard them from predators who would degenerately use them, and construct safe environments where the innocence and dignity of their bodies will be respected and protected.

Our Lord said, “Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to stumble, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened round his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea.” (Mat. 18.6) Respect for life and for the dignity of the human body is not a matter of politics or orientation. It’s not about personal choice or point of view. It’s not about liability or public relations. It’s about accountability; it’s about being created in the image and likeness of God.

The Holy Nativity versus Merry Xmas – The True Joy of Christmas Season

(Orignially written in December 2005)

As December twenty-fifth approaches, the world around us prepares to take down the trees and put away the “holiday” banners. At the same time, therapists are already gearing up for the time when depression seems to strike more people than any other time of year. And no wonder! After all, don’t the Twelve Days of Christmas end on December twenty-fifth? The party’s over. All that’s left is the drunken bacchanal of New Year’s Eve.

Many think “Xmas” is over. How wrong they are.

It’s not Christmas, but Advent, that ends on December twenty-fourth. In the Catholic Church, Advent (the season leading up to Christmas) is a somber time of prayer, contemplation and fasting. We don’t celebrate the Lord’s birth, we await it. It is a time of reflection and anticipation.

Christmas Season really begins on December twenty-fifth and ends on January sixth (the Feast of the Epiphany) – the true Twelve Days of Christmas. The solemn mood of Advent gives way to a joyous melody of our Lord’s birth. Consider the tonal differences of hymns like “O Come Emmanuel” versus “Angels We Have Heard on High”.

The Church rightly proclaims Christmas as a season of joy, a time of gratefulness in which our Lord shows us the importance of family. It reveals the great Mystery that God’s love for us is so profound He came down to be born in a manger in Bethlehem (literally, “the House of Bread”). Through our Baptism and the Holy Mass we are all one family, and the Holy Family of Nazareth becomes our model for family life, “a model of what the family should be,” “a place of love and sharing,” in the words of Pope Paul VI; a school where we “learn to realize who Christ really is.”

Christmas is a time for cherished customs and traditions reflecting God’s love. Such happy customs abound in the Catholic Church. For example, the much-maligned Christmas tree, representing the Tree of Life in Paradise, is traditionally not lit until after the Vigil Mass of Christmas and remains in the home at least until after Epiphany. Some still bring wine to be blessed and drunk on the Feast of St John the Beloved Disciple on December twenty-seventh. In the Eastern Church, the family gathers to share St Basil’s Bread (Vasilopita) on January first. In many Italian homes, Epiphany is the day for gift giving, and in the Byzantine Church holy water is blessed for house blessings. In fact, the joy of Christmas typically continues to the Feast of the Presentation on February second. And these all draw us back to the Holy Mass and to our Lord.

Therefore, let us celebrate this holy season of Christmas with the joy and thanksgiving it rightly deserves. And let us never forget that this is the Season of God’s Light coming into the world making us all members of God’s Family! Let us proclaim, “Christ is born! Glorify Him!”

Holy Lent, Holy Repentance – A Season of Joy

(Originially written in late February 2006)

Roman Rite Catholics begin their annual Lenten Journey to Easter with Ash Wednesday. For Byzantine Rite Catholics, Lent begins two days earlier on “Clean Monday.” In both traditions, Lent is a season marked by penitence and special devotions. Significant spiritual acts indicate its great importance in Christian life.

The theme of Lent is repentance, and various practices and devotions emphasize this theme. In the West, the weekly Stations of the Cross features prominently, while in the East, the great Akathist Hymn is chanted every Friday. Throughout Lent, the Church calls us again and again to repentance.

Yet some hesitate. In our sophisticated world, many have mistakenly come to believe that repentance is little more than a superstitious relic of the past. To them, the Sacrament of Reconciliation seems repressive. The very idea of penance seems an alien masochistic practice to our modern ‘feel good’ culture.

How short sighted they are! Lent is not a maudlin time of sorrow and despair. Of course, there is contrition for sins, but Lenten repentance is also an act of joyous renewal. God’s Great Mercy beckons to us, and through repentance we turn back to receive His generous forgiveness. We come to recognize that even as we are in complete need of God’s mercy, in His Great Love for us He is always ready to accept our repentance and lead us to holiness. Every practice and custom of Lent becomes an occasion to inspire us to that repentance that is both joyful and life-giving.

The Church teaches that the Sacrament of Reconciliation (Holy Confession) must be received at least once a year, and that during Lent. From what has been said above, it is easy to see why. The seasonal practices and devotions associated with Great Lent are especially suited to assist us as we approach the Sacrament of forgiveness.

In a world overwrought with anxiety and neuroses, self-doubt, self-pity, and self-righteousness, Reconciliation has the spiritual power to heal us from sin. It reopens the doors to life filled with Divine Love. More and more, people are coming to see this important Sacrament as a vital part of their spiritual life. Like the psalmist, those who frequent this Mystery of forgiveness find themselves thanking God: “Too heavy for us, our offenses, but You wipe them away.” Oprah can’t do it, but our Lord can!

Archbishop Fulton Sheen used to say: “There are two ways of knowing how good God is: one is never to lose Him through the preservation of innocence; the other is to find Him again after He has been lost.” During this Lenten season, make time to receive this wonderful Sacrament of Reconciliation and experience for yourself the great Love of God it reveals.

Modern Culture, the Catholic Church and Homosexuality

Culture, the Catholic Church and Homosexuality
— Where is the Ambivalence?

An article recently appeared in the Charleston, South Carolina's Post and Courier Faith and Values section entitled Gay Catholics Struggle with Ambivalent Policy. The article states that the Catholic Diocese of Charleston "laid out an ambivalent opinion” regarding a gay rights group that recently held a workshop in a local Congregational church. "The Diocese of Charleston's spokesman ... when asked about why this workshop did not take place in a local Catholic church ...described its goals as heresy. He then talked about reaching out to gay Catholics with open arms." The article raises the question whether the Church is in fact ambivalent in its views about homosexuality and if not why such a perception may exist. It is easy to see why the Church’s views would appear to be ambivalent. How can the Church condemn homosexuality and yet claim to ‘reach out’ to those who consider themselves homosexual? At best, such a claim seems ‘ambivalent;’ and at worst, hypocritical. And if not, then we must ask why modern culture thinks it is.

Why the Catholic Church Condemns Homosexuality. The Church’s position is based in an understanding of God, and an imperative which that understanding enjoins on believers, that ultimately is neither hypocritical nor ambivalent (and is certainly not malicious). Catholic anthropology (man’s understanding of his relationship with God) is founded on the revelation that God is Love. (1 Jn 4.8) Every position taken by the Church regarding human life and society has its origin in this principle. We recognize that life itself is a gift from God to be treasured and protected. We believe that the universe was created as good, and that each person on earth is a precious gift of God worthy of respect and bearing inherent dignity.

A consequence of our belief in God is that we have free will to accept God’s love and to love God, or to reject God’s love. (Love that is not free is not love but slavery.) Sin and death are corruptions of God’s creation and are not willed by God but merely permitted. They exist only as a product of the free will choice to reject God’s love. Rejecting God is rejecting the Author of Life itself and therefore is the movement and state of sin, the origin of death.

Our Lord’s sacrifice on the Cross and triumphant Resurrection overthrows the power of sin and death and offers us the opportunity to regain the immortality enjoyed in the beginning in Paradise. Christ invites us to draw closer to the God who is Love and in so doing restores that image of God within us that makes us children of God. As we draw closer to God we grow in His likeness and so receive life ever more abundantly. (Jn 10.10) We come to recognize the beauty of that life present in creation and the intricacies of its form and order.

Perceiving the order and intricate unity of nature we recognize homosexuality as sinful in that homosexual behaviors are obviously contrary to the design and purpose of the human body. This is empirically undeniable. The complementarity of the sexes manifests a physiological ‘fit’ that has no parallel in same sex intercourse, a fact often obscured in public discourse on the topic.

Thus, the Catholic Church teaches that homosexual behavior is inconsistent with Christian morality and is a grave sin; that same sex attraction is inherently disordered; that homosexual acts are physiologically harmful to the dignity the human body; and that the "gay culture" is unacceptable as a life-style “alternative” for Catholic Christians. Willful homosexual activity is a gravely disordered violation of the dignity of the human body and therefore is consequently a rejection of God. It is for this reason that homosexual activity is condemned by the Church.

Can the Church Reach Out to Homosexuals? This brings us back to the issue of the perceived ‘ambivalence’ in the Church teaching on homosexuality. How can the Church maintain that homosexuality is sinful and yet also ‘reach out’ to those who identify themselves as homosexual?

Modern culture believes that we must either "hate sin and hate the sinner" or "love sin and embrace the sinner." It prefers to "love the sin" since it conceives opposition to this view as “hating the sin and hating the sinner." It exalts diversity and equality of opinion and the supremacy of dialogue; and it believes that opinions are valid only to the extent that opposing views are admitted to have equal value. Since committing to objective truth would belie the equal value of all opinions, standing ground for one's principles is often anathema. No one must claim to have ultimate truth (Jn 18.38) because truth itself must be defined as a relative and changeable commodity.

Yet, the Church claims to uphold objective truth about God and this alone has serious consequences. But the Church also denies the simplistic dichotomy between loving the sin and the sinner versus hating the sin and the sinner. The solidarity of all humans as children of God convinces us that no one is beyond salvation. Reflection on the truth that our love for God has its origin in Him brings forth within us not only love for God but also a generous love for “our neighbor.” This is so firmly part of the Divine Mystery of God’s Love at work within us that it forms part of the “Two Great Commandments.” (Matt 22.40f)

Thus reflecting on God and following Scripture, we conclude that “God hates sin but loves the sinner.” We recall that with every act of creation “God saw that it was good.” (Gen 1.10, Wis 11.24) We distinguish between the actions of a sinner on the one hand and the sinner as a child of God on the other; and consequently, we naturally reach out to everyone as a brother or sister in Christ. The same belief in God that reveals homosexual activity to be contrary to the will of God also impels us to love and have compassion on those who experience same sex attraction.

For the Church to be true to itself and its beliefs, we must reach out to the sinner, whoever that sinner is and no matter what the sin is. It is not a matter of obedience or compulsion so much as it is the natural expression of who we are as children of God. Far from holding an ambivalent or self-contradictory position towards homosexuality, the Church is both consistent and generous in proclaiming a Truth that challenges and leads to salvation.

Modern Culture Avoids Engaging the Church in Dialogue. It is clear that many would prefer for the Church to 'adapt' to prevailing contemporary standards rather than be true to its own Faith and teachings. For the Catholic Church to continue to teach the 'hard sayings' of the Gospel provokes a confrontation with Truth many today would prefer to avoid. It violates the "I'm OK, You're OK" axiom that has been emblematic of modern secular life since the 1960’s.

The Church’s claim to speak the truth implies before all else that there just might be revealed Truth out there. Truth may have an objective reality that cannot be altered by public opinion or cultural drift. Our belief is centered on Jesus Christ who proclaims the Gospel as objectively true. Thus, the Church offends merely by continuing to proclaim the Gospel and Jesus Christ. That such a Gospel exists in itself confronts modern culture with a challenge it would prefer not to consider.

Rather than addressing what the Church actually teaches, contemporary culture instead commonly characterizes the Church as ignorant or malicious. If it engages in real dialogue about what the Church actually believes it risks discovering that its choices, opinions or behavior might be revealed to be immoral, or worse sinful. Such a dialogue might require us to think and perhaps even change! (As GK Chesterton quipped, "The Catholic Church is the only thing which saves a man from the degrading slavery of being a child of his own age.")

The Post and Courier article includes an example of how culture avoids discussing what the Church actually teaches. It notes that "slavery, racism and the discrimination of left-handed people" were "phenomena once accepted by society and people in the church" but which "changed over time." Worthy of discussion though they are, introducing slavery, racism and discrimination into the argument actually deflects attention from examining the Church’s teaching on its own merits. In the end, it is a red herring that does not address the real issue.

After forty years of the "I'm OK, You're OK" culture, we must ultimately confess that you and I aren't ok. There is sin and sickness and evil in the world; and sin does have its wages. The Gospel is a difficult spiritual path along which we all sometimes stumble. Yet, stumbling does not relieve us from the responsibility to continue the journey towards our ultimate goal. The Catholic Faith is founded on and has held fast to the Gospel for two millennia. Our Lord came, not to make God over in man's image, but to make man (male and female) to grow in the Image and Likeness of God. There is nothing ambivalent about it. The real ambivalence is in those who either do not listen clearly to what the Gospel proclaims or else who don't want to listen. As Chesterton said, "It is not that Christianity has been tried and found wanting but has been found hard and not tried.”

Thoughts on the proposed revised translation of the Creed for the Roman Rite

The US Bishops have been meeting, and the Latin Rite Bishops have been discussing the proposed revised translation of the Holy Mass.

(I wonder what the Eastern Bishops have been doing to kill time during this ordeal. Dominos? Backgammon?)

I've read quite a bit on the proposed new translation of the Creed. Closed Cafeteria includes a link to what purports to be a pirated copy of official study text the Bishops have been considering. Curiosity, and a deep-seated desire to see our brethren of the Roman Rite have a more wholesome and accurate translation of the Latin original, led me to examine it.

Now, I'm not a Latin scholar. However, knowing that the Latin "substantially" agrees with the Greek original (and the word is in quotes advisedly), I find several points of concern. One of these has received a fair amount of attention, but not the others. As they have to do with the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity and the Incarnation, I consider it not inappropriate for me to stick my big Byzantine nose in to this decidedly Latin business.

Concerning the Incarnation of God the Son, the Latin reads:

"et in unam Dominum Iesum Christum,
Filium Dei Unigenitum,
et ex Patre natum ante omnia saecula."

The proposed translation has:

"I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ,
the Only-begotten Son of God,
born of the Father before time began."

I have no problem with the change from "and in" to "I believe in" as this sublimes the meaning in English better than the Latin preference for dependent clauses. What concerns me is "born of the Father before time began."

Here is a case where word for word translation could clarify the meaning of the original. God the Father did not give birth to God the Son. Hence, "born" does not function appropriately to convey the 'begottenness' of the Son of the Father in this phrasing. The fact is that the Latin obviously seeks to translate clearly what is in the original Greek. It states belief in "one Lord, Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Only-begotten born of the Father." To further prevent the potential English misunderstanding that the Father gives birth to the Son, the translation could validly state, "the Only-begotten, begotten of the Father."

Note, however, that if the Latin word order were more accurately followed, the "born of the Father" would still make theological sense. This is because "et ex Patre natum" is intended to follow "Unigenitum." We could validly say He is "born of the Father" precisely because He is the Only-begotten. This preserves the distinction in English that males ‘beget’ while females ‘give birth." Thus, He is "born of the Father" because He is the Only-Begotten.

Note: There is a very scholarly discussion on the Creed at Wikipedia that discusses the use of the term "Only-begotten."

And finally, the Latin phrase concludes with "ante omnia saecula." This is a direct rendering of the Greek πρό πάντων τών αιώνων, which literally says, “before all ages.” “Before time began” approximates what the Greek and Latin state, but only approximately. The term “ages,” and the underlying concept it so beautifully and poetically conveys, is that God Is before all things exist. This relates both to the spiritual realm and to the material realm. This relates to the things "visible and invisible" referred to in the opening clause. Translating the phrase as "before time began" does not preclude that "there was when He was not." And since the Creed had its origin in the Arian controversy, we might safely conclude that the Council Fathers chose "before all ages" for the express purpose of excluding this possibility. (Remember, it is – and was – possible to say "before time began" in Greek!)

All this being said, a more precise translation of this passage should be either of the following:

"I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ,
the Only-begotten Son of God,
begotten of the Father before all ages."

Or

"I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ,
the Son of God, the Only-begotten
born of the Father before all ages."

This brings us to the following translational issue:

The Latin states

"Crucifixus etiam pro nobis sub Pontio Pilato;
Passus et sepultus est,
Et resurrexit tertia die, secumdum Scripturas,
Et ascendit in caelum, sedet ad dexteram Patris.
Et iterum venturus est cum gloria,
Iudicare vivos et mortuos,
Euius regni non erit finis."

This is translated as:

"Crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate,
He suffered death and was buried.
On the third day he rose again
In accordance with the Scriptures;
He ascended into heaven
And sits at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again with glory
To judge the living and the dead
And his kingdom will have no end."

I would simply note that "Crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate" does not need "also."

In addition, stating that our Lord "suffered death" is a noble but perhaps misguided attempt to clarify that "passus" indicates a "suffering unto death," not the sense of the term currently in vogue indicating a state of being vexed. Precision – not to mention the wealth of catechetical opportunity it would provide – would argue either a straight forward "He suffered and was buried" or even the previous ICEL text "suffered, died and was buried."

Other nits I could pick would include leaving out "men" in the translation of "qui propter nos hominis et propter nostram salutem descendit de caelis." This is a case where attempting to be inclusive (PC) risks reducing the inference to allow the misconception that the Son "came down from heaven" for us – the assembled community, as opposed to for all humanity.

"People" won’t work in this context as in many areas it tends to indicated a specifiable group of humans (e.g., "You people, get outta my yard!").

"Humans" still sounds stilted and unwieldy.

"for all humanity...?"

Oh, and no matter what you say, it is clear that precision would truly require "qui pro vobis et pro multis effundetur" to be translated "will be poured out for you and for many." Argument in favor of "for all" because someone might think that ‘certain people’ are not included is but a theoretical shibboleth. It is similar to the misguided theological paranoia that a Tabernacle on the Altar, or behind it, would confuse the people at Mass.

Having said all this, I’ll take my big Byzantine nose and move on.

Κύριε 'ελέησον !