Is this REALLY that hard to figure out? Seriously… is this that tough?
OK, I guess I’ll have to point out the obvious.
“Dew”.
~ Something that’s benificial that comes from above.
~ It’s even-handed in it’s life giving water to all of God’s creation that it comes into contact with.
~ From that ancient Catholic prayer Rorate Caeli, “The Dew of Heaven”. (first line - “Bedew us, heaven, from above; ye clouds rain down the Just One”
~ This is suppose to evoke an image of The Holy Ghost coming down upon all of us as a response to our prayers and supplications.
Caveman, I am torn. The metaphor “dew” is powerful. In addition to your image you state, it shows that it comes or can come in non-traditional ways (i.e as opposed to rain).
But to effectively evoke the desired image it requires an awareness of the natural phenonomen of “dew”. Those of us who live in rural America understand it as we know it is the source of moisture for certain plants which grow in sandy soil (doesn’t retain moisture around its roots) or certain baby animals immobile or don’t have access to standing/running water.
As you can tell by my name, I am a bird hunter. My daughters and son enjoy it with me. The reason that I wonder if it will evoke the proper image is that my daughters were in their late teens before they truly understood the power of dew. We were on vacation in the mountains just after school ended. Because it was to be hot during the day, they dressed in shorts and sandals. And, during an early morning walk, they were cursing the dew as it made their feet wet, and then hold dirt. It was during this time that I told them all of the beauties and value that come from dew. Because of the nesting needs of pheasants to avoid predators, it is dew that allows pheasant chicks to get moisture until they are sufficiently mobile to get to other water sources.
My point, if they had been with their non-outdoor mother or a father who wasn’t as involved in the outdoors and a farm/ranch background, they would have retained a negative connotation and value of dew. And when they read these words, they would not have gotten the image desired by the Church. At best, it would be confusing. At worst, it would be contrary to the intent.
Let me give you another example. The Psalms and Isaiah were always confusing to me. But when I was given advice to combine a reading w/ a study guide that gave historical explanation of context, they came alive for me. Considering all of the Catechesis challenges we have to overcome in the Church, I am not sure that we should be adding new confusions.
I am still torn after I write this. With regard to Scripture, I am a hawk on being true to original text and I strongly resist efforts to adopt the prayers of the Church to be politically correct or conform to current fads/vernacular. But, we do need to have appropriate sensitivity to ensuring that the prayers of the Church are properly understood by both the educated but also those less educated. It is a reality that in today’s world, the masses (esp. in America) are not as directly aware of nature in the same way that our forefathers were. The Church has a rich history of using imagery to spread the Word. Imagery that is effective because it is relevant. Some of the most powerful imagery was introduced during the Renaissance. But keep in mind, it was an “innovation” of what was used before.
While not endorsing nor criticizing the image that the Bishop asserts it might evoke, we should not be overly harsh on his assertion that going back to text relevant in the past may be inappropriately confusing today.
At first, I was going to suggest “fog” or “mist” as an alternative that is more widely understood. Unfortunately, it doesn’t have the mysterious “out of nowhere” image that dew does.
uch: