I love this.  We have always been uneasy about the Santa thing.  If they eventually find out that what they’re most excited about is a myth, it would certainly be easy for a young one to consider all of Christmas a myth.

Hey! Wait a minute.
I’m a big guy with a long white beard, rosy red cheeks, and my belly looks like a bowl full of jelly when I laugh. (which I do a lot of) I even have my own red suit white with white fur trim.  And yes, my name really is Chris.
Have you ever noticed that “good things” are often twisted, misshaped, misstated, and made into something not so good?  Of course you have, that’s the nature of subverting things that are good, and that is what happens when we fail to teach what forms the basis of Santa.  Goodness, how can we fail to teach something so simple when when Santa means Saint, and prepares for Christmas, meaning Christ’s Mass, and Holiday, menaing Holy Day.
Words mean things! 
!!Merry Christmas!!

For your reader, from _The Catholic Catechism_ by Father John A. Hardon, S.J., Doubleday, 1975 (paperback) page 402:

“Circumstances are an integral part of human speech; such circumstances are the time, place, tone of voice, and the persons addressed.  Thus what may verbally be contrary to fact, like telling children about Santa Claus, is not lying.”

We answered our children’s questions as to why there were Santas all over the place and how he could get presents all over the world with the comment “They are Santa’s helpers. The real Santa Clause is a spirit. ” We read them a book about St. Nicholas and pointed out that his helpers continue his acts of charities in his spirit. At some point they all came to know that they too could be a Santa’s helper.

Mr. Shea makes an excellent and true point in indicating that the Church’s Magisterium in morals is more about principles than about the application of principles to particular cases (altho even here it deserves to be listened to seriously, as in the encyclical Mater et Magistra).
But contrary to Father Hardon quoted above, I think my excellent and saintly parents sinned materially (not formally) in speaking of Santa to me. My brother, I understand, claims he never believed it. But a clueless nerd like me did believe it. Even when my father once dressed like Santa and I exclaimed (so my mother told me), “Santa Claus looks like Daddy!”, I didn’t catch on. Even as a school kid I caught on only when, having presented my mother one day with the statement of a schoolmate that Santa was “really your parents”, I was shocked when she broke out laughing. So maybe telling your kid about Santa depends on your kid. It’s certainly no lie if your kid’s not really fooled; but if he is, ....

As little children, our kids grew up beleiving in Santa.  Now that they are a bit older - one knows he is not “real” and the other kind of knows he is not “real” (in the sense of a living, breathing human being actually living at the North Pole).  They DO know that he represents St. Nicholas, they DO know the story of St. Nicholas and they know the true meaning of Christmas and that it’s ALL about Jesus.

Sometimes I think we worry too much about stuff like this.  Santa, and the Easter Bunny and stuff like that, I mean.  As long as our children are taught the true meaning of our high Holy Days - I think there are other secular things that I am much more worried of them learning about.

The one person wrote about the Easter Bunny. I don’t know why but I don’t remember being told he wasn’t real and I don’t remember being sad when he stopped coming. Santa was a major blow and it ruined that Christmas and the next few after that. Maybe if it was stressed about only getting one toy delivered by Santa and more emphasis on doing for others it wouldn’t of been such a blow.

When family and friends ask us about this they often accuse us of being a Scrooge, or depriving our children from joy. On the contrary, I tell them that we more deeply celebrate the season. We take great joy in the season of Advent (a hidden gem that needs to be shared with others, especially the unchurched or under-churched). We have a Jesse tree (accomopanied by salvation history scripture stories, songs, and ornaments), an Advent calendar, an Advent wreath, feast days (like St. Nicholas, St. Lucia, Marian ((OLG and IC)), etc.). The kids do crafts to celebrate the pre and post Nativity stories. Our creche scene is gradually populated, with Joseph and Mary making their way slowly towards the manger. Same with the Magi (they even come from the east!) We get a Christmas tree, but don’t decorate it until Christmas eve. We celebrate Scandinavian traditions, especially on St. Lucia’s feast day. We read the story of the real St. Nicholas, replete with shoes filled with coins. Other than participating in the sacred liturgies, we also make sure to celebrate the entire liturgical season of Christmas. This means that most of our gift giving comes on the feast of the Epiphany, with some presents addressed from Baltazar, Gaspar, and Melchior. We have had a more fruitful experience sharing the riches of the seasons rather than concentrating on the negatives of the fat man (sorry, Mark!) pushed on us by a materialist culture. Happy Advent! Merry Christmas! Ho ho ho!

I would like to hear from someone who really, seriously believed that there was a Santa Claus when they were little and who really, seriously had a Moment of Revelation when he discovered there was no Santa.  When I was little, even though I basically thought there was probably a Santa Claus in the back of my mind I always suspected that Mom was the one who actually put out the presents.  I never had a defining moment of stopping my belief in Santa…I just more or less grew out of it. Plus, as I recall older kids never wasted a second in telling young kids that Santa wasn’t real, partly to show off how wise and mature they were!

Funny, but no one ever convicts themselves of lying about the whole infant in a manger/3 wise men thing.  The fudging of that story is ok?  Why? 

Of course it’s ok and of course Santa is ok.  Fr. Hardon was exactly right: Circumstances.  Jesse trees and Advent calendars are all well and good, but it doesn’t translate the reality of the complete joy - like the complete, crazy joy of running down the stairs to rip open presents from Santa - to a child.  You’re only a kid once; I’d've been pissed if I was deprived of one of the great fun myths of childhood.  Also, how you tell a kid about it matters; when you say it with a broad sideways smile and twinkle in your eye, well, it gets taken in a very different vein than the seriousness of, e.g., the existence of God.

Dear Mark—
Thanks so much for this post. Above, you wrote:

****I’m not going to try to adjudicate the question of sin here, and I’m skeptical it’s very helpful to try.  I can pretty much guarantee the Church will *never* give you an official answer, because it’s just not what the teaching office of the Church does, any more than the Magisterium issues encyclicals on whether you should get the creamed or whole kernel corn.  The Church’s teaching office exists to give us basic principles of the Tradition and some general guidance on how to apply them.  But then it’s up to us to form our consciences and act accordingly.  ****

This is a brilliant and succint statement expressing the manner in which the Church’s Magisterium has addressed the subject of lying for the last 2000 years. Indeed, this is precisely why I believe the Magisterium has always opted *not* to resolve the theological debate regarding specifically what does and does not constitute the sin of lying in so many special cases. And it’s also why the Magisterium only goes so far as to present the “common teaching of Catholic theologians” when it addresses lying in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Instead, the Magisterium allows a soul to form conscience on many of these specific “special cases” (such as whether to share the Santa “mythos” with one’s children), and leaves the judgement regarding “sin” entirely to God.  This allows a person either to embrace the more rigorous “common teaching” which at face value may seem to suggest that teaching your kids the Santa “mythos” is a form of venially sinful “lying”, or to accept the less rigorous theological opinion that doing so is *not* a form of lying (expressed, e.g., by Fr. Hardon’s quote in an above comment).

God bless and Happy Advent—again, brilliant—you nailed it.

Deacon JR

Seems to me that the danger is greatly overestimated that a small kid who’s deceived in really believing in Santa may, on coming to be undeceived about that, come to doubt Christianity or even monotheism. Because in a church-going family the kid is exposed to year-round serious weekly services of Christian worship by an entire faith-community. Besides, at Baptism the kid has had infused into his understanding a “habitus” of divine faith, right?—a sort of energy which inwardly inclines the mind to assent to what is of faith.

This may clear up your concern. The EWTN network has a show “Living with Dr. Ray.“When I was in the seminary studying for pastoral ministry,one of my classmates was Joseph Marquis. He was a professional Santa Claus and for twelve years he was the Santa for the Christmas parade in Detroit. Joe went on to the priesthood and is the founder of the St. Nicholas Institute in Livonia Michigan. He is the pastor of Sacred Heart Byzantine Catholic Church in Livonia. He trains professional Santa Clauses from across the nation and conducts an annual training and retreat for the Santas. Fr. Joseph is a guest on Dr. Rays’ show. Check EWTN web site for times between now and New Years. Fr. Joseph is the premier expert on the Theology and history of Santa Claus.

I have actually heard people say discovering Santa wasn’t real is what lead them to atheism, it seems like Isaac Asimov maybe said something like that which I grant is odd as he was Jewish, so I wouldn’t say that’s ridiculous.

Discovering the “truth” didn’t do much to me because the truth, IMO, is he’s legendary not completely fictional. Legendary figures often develop a tall-tale aspect, but there can be a reality to them at base. If this made me skeptical I think it’s more a healthy/semi-healthy skepticism about folk tale stories about real people.

Hi, Thomas R—

I’d agree that there is a “real” component at the heart of the Santa “mythos” (the term I’m comfortable using to describe the “tall tales”).

But I think the excellent “takeaway” from this piece is that, while, Mark above clearly concludes that he, in conscience, sees the Santa “mythos” as lying (unless I’m mistaken), he’s not expecting that everyone else will draw the same conclusion and is also noting the obligation each soul has to form conscience regarding this. It would seem fairly clear that, if the Magisterium actually taught that the Santa myth was an example of venially sinful lying, we’d all be obliged to stop the “lie” that is Santa (and Mark would be obliged to state that everyone should stop participating in the “lie”). But since there is no Magisterial teaching on lying, the faithful are pointed to the “common teaching of Catholic theology” on the subject (as in the CCC)and invited to form their consciences according to their best effort on this question and other “special case” questions. There can be charitable differences of view expressed on this, as a result.

God bless you,

Deacon JR

Deacon JR:  I will thank you, of all people, not to presume to answer for me, particularly when your answer is wrong about what the Church and what I say.  It is absolutely false that “there is no Magisterial teaching on lying”.  Here it is:

2482 “A lie consists in speaking a falsehood with the intention of deceiving.“281 The Lord denounces lying as the work of the devil: “You are of your father the devil, . . . there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks according to his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies.“282

2487 Every offense committed against justice and truth entails the duty of reparation, even if its author has been forgiven. When it is impossible publicly to make reparation for a wrong, it must be made secretly. If someone who has suffered harm cannot be directly compensated, he must be given moral satisfaction in the name of charity. This duty of reparation also concerns offenses against another’s reputation. This reparation, moral and sometimes material, must be evaluated in terms of the extent of the damage inflicted. It obliges in conscience.

What there is not, and cannot by the nature of the case be, is a detailed magisterial analysis of how each and every family’s handling of the Santa story fits with the prohibition against lying because of the immense variety of ways in which this particular speech act is enacted, as well as the immense variety of levels of culpability even when the act is lying and not, say, fiction or theatre.  In short, it’s impossible to say whether a given family is actually lying when they indulge the Santa story, or doing something else involving, not deception, but merely a willing suspension of disbelief.  If somebody is really and truly lying to their kid and making them believe something that is, in fact, false, I counsel against it for the very same reason I counsel against all lying: because it is likely to destroy trust when the lie is finally exposed.  But since I do not know details of how each family handles it, I make no judgement on such a granular question.

Dear Mark—

Thank you for your reply; my apologies if anything I say above involves a presumption to answer for you—not my intention.

But, okay—I was quite pleased to see how you responded to this question because I thought it represented the clearest articulation of the truth about lying and the Magisterium that I’ve ever seen from you.

Yet, I see above that you don’t think I’m correct regarding “magisterial” teaching and “common teaching” on lying.

But, with respect, here is where your argument is not sound and thus where it falters:

For a teaching contained in the Catechism to be considered “magisterial”, it must be derived from an actual and official magisterial source—a magisterial teaching *document* of the Pope and bishops. And that’s not the origin for the statements on lying you cite above from the CCC 2483-2487. The origin of *those* statements? The “common teaching of Catholic theologians”—which is the phrase used over and over again in the last century to describe that very teaching—used in encyclopedias (as late as 1967 “New Catholic Encyclopedia”) and moral theology manuals throughout the 20th Century.

In this, the “Year of Faith” and the 20th year since the promulgation of the CCC, we’re challenged by one aspect of the CCC that was a deliberate choice made by the editors—the choice to *avoid* making explicit the various levels and types of teachings contained in the CCC (something one *does* find, for example, in Ludwig Ott’s “Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma.” The CCC editors made that choice so as to more adequately express the “organic” nature of the content of the CCC, but in doing so, it left readers with the task of digging deep to address any questions arising about the authority or “weight” of particular teachings.

This is the case with the teaching on lying, Mark. When you “follow the footnotes,” you do *not* end up at the Magisterial doorstep, but rather at the *theologian’s* doorstep. Big difference, indeed.

The CCC possesses zero magisterial “weight” of its own—it’s not “magisterial” in itself, as it is merely a *repetition* of existing teaching of one kind or another.

So, as regarding the Santa “mythos,” we have more than one option as faithful Catholics—sure we can believe that engaging in the Santa story with our children would be venially sinful lying—the Magisterium doesn’t preclude that possibility. BUT, what we cannot do is tell other folks that such a belief is the product of a magisterial teaching. Other folks are free to form consciences according to their best effort to understand how to apply the “common teaching” to resolve the special cases associated with lying.

God bless you,

Deacon JR

Mark—I intend to reply to your claim that I am not teaching according to what the Church teaches—but for some reason I am having technical issues….

And so I try once more…the condensed version of a longer reply that apparently was labelled as “potential spam”...

Mark—the problem is this: the CCC is not in itself, a magisterial teaching. Rather, it comprises a whole range of different teaching statements, some magisterial, some not—it all depends on the *source* of the statements. The statements you cite above(CCC 2483 to 2487) are not statements of the Magisterium—if you follow the footnotes of such statements, you will see that they do not lead you to the Magisterial “doorstep” (no official documents of pope and bishops teaching on lying) but rather lead you to the *theologian’s* doorstep (Aquinas/Augustine, etc.). Which is why you can’t call the CCC teaching on lying “magisterial”—it’s the “common teaching of Catholic theologians” and was called such all through the Church’s history all the way into the late 20th Century.

But the CCC editors made a deliberate choice to refrain from including the level of “certitude” of each teaching (cf. Ludwig Ott’s “Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma”) in the CCC in order preserve a greater sense of organic unity of the whole of the content. But in doing so, it forces the reader to have to go elsewhere to determine the kind of certitude each teaching possesses. That’s why this has been confusing—over the last 20 years of the CCC, we’ve somehow forgotten how to consider the “certitude” attached to each teaching.

And this is vitally important regarding lying, particularly as it adheres to the “Santa mythos”—faithful Catholics are not somehow ignoring or even risking denying “magisterial” teaching on lying if they deliberately participate in the Santa myth with their kids….they’re free to form their conscience according to the common teaching (as you have) or according to a less rigorous theological opinion regarding some of the “special cases” associated with lying.

God bless you,

Deacon JR

Just one question: where are the masses proclaiming an inability to believe in Jesus because they were taught the myth about Santa? Just sayin’.

Do there have to be masses?  Is there some acceptably small number of people who conclude “Santa was a lie.  So is Jesus.”  Certainly a common atheist trope is that Jesus is a consoling fairy tale for people unable to cope with adulthood.

Mark—citing the relevant CCC paragraphs does nothing to support a claim that the teaching therein is “magisterial”—CCC repeats teaching, doesn’t invent it. Gotta show a magisterial source for the teaching. JR

Mark—the problem is this: the CCC is not in itself, a magisterial teaching. Rather, it comprises a whole range of different teaching statements, some magisterial, some not—it all depends on the *source* of the statements. The statements you cite above(CCC 2483 to 2487) are not statements of the Magisterium—if you follow the footnotes of such statements, you will see that they do not lead you to the Magisterial “doorstep” (no official documents of pope and bishops teaching on lying) but rather lead you to the *theologian’s* doorstep (Aquinas/Augustine, etc.). Which is why you can’t call the CCC teaching on lying “magisterial”—it’s the “common teaching of Catholic theologians” and was called such all through the Church’s history all the way into the late 20th Century.

But the CCC editors made a deliberate choice to refrain from including the level of “certitude” of each teaching (cf. Ludwig Ott’s “Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma”) in the CCC in order preserve a greater sense of organic unity of the whole of the content. But in doing so, it forces the reader to have to go elsewhere to determine the kind of certitude each teaching possesses. That’s why this has been confusing—over the last 20 years of the CCC, we’ve somehow forgotten how to consider the “certitude” attached to each teaching.

And this is vitally important regarding lying, particularly as it adheres to the “Santa mythos”—faithful Catholics are not somehow ignoring or even risking denying “magisterial” teaching on lying if they deliberately participate in the Santa myth with their kids….they’re free to form their conscience according to the common teaching (as you have) or according to a less rigorous theological opinion regarding some of the “special cases” associated with lying.

God bless you,

Deacon Jim R

What about stage magic?  Or ventriloquism?  Both magic and ventriloquism are condemned in the Bible as grave sins against the First Commandment, but I don’t think what is meant is either stage magic (which is all illusory, not true supernatural occult feats) or the illusion of throwing one’s voice to make it look like a wooden dummy is the one talking rather than yourself.  I think the point there is that, aside from the fact that there is nothing supernatural going on but only illusion, we KNOW it’s just an illusion and that’s the point—there is no lying going on, only skill that makes us wonder “how did they DO that?”  It would seem to me that Santa Claus might fall into a similar category.  Why not have fun with a fictional character like Santa Claus?  Besides, if he is fictional, you can make up whatever you want about him and it won’t be “false” (isn’t that what’s happened with most of the Santa Claus mythos anyway?).  Just make him better than what he has degenerated into in our modern culture, especially since he bears the same name as Saint Nicholas of Myra who punched Arius in the face in righteous anger.

Dear Mark—

Above you have made the accusation that my saying the CCC teaching on lying is not magisterial is “absolutely false.” I have defended my position above (and could continue to defend it by citing an array of moral theology and reference manuals if you would like). As such, I would greatly appreciate either a charitable refutation of my defense or an acknowledgement from you that my position is not, in fact, “absolutely false.”

God bless you,

Deacon JR

That the Catechism is not in itself a DEFINITIVE expression of the Church’s Magisterium, I concede. But the non sequitur hat it is not an expression of the Church’s Magisterium AT ALL, I deny.

Hi, Subsistent—

If you read the pertinent documents related to the creation and promulgation of the CCC, and also the “Introduction to the Catechism of the Catholic Church” co-authored by Cardinals Ratzinger and Schonborn, it will become clear that the CCC is an “expression” of the Church’s Magisterium insofar as it is the Magisterium that produces “universal” catechisms and promulgates them. Yes, the CCC is a “sure norm” for teaching/instructing the faithful just as JPII says in promulgating it. But the point is that not every product of the Magisterium contains content that is exclusively the product of the Magisterium itself. The CCC is most clearly such a work. It contains doctrines ranging in certitude from “de fide” to “common teaching”. And, by definition, “common teaching” does not originate with the Magisterium but with Catholic theologians….

This is why I say that the teaching on lying is not magisterial and that simply being “in” the Catechism doesn’t change or elevate the “weight” or certitude of a particular teaching—it can’t make “common teaching” automatically “magisterial”.

God bless,

Deacon JR

Subsistent:

You are correct.  The Deacon is wrong.  The hidden agenda to his words is that he has been obsessively stalking me for nearly two years, trying to argue that Live Action lying to Planned Parenthood is morally justifiable and he persistently does things like try to hijack threads like this in order to drag the conversation back to that.  He has harrassed me, threatened to accuse me to my bishop (I would love to be a fly on the wall when the bishop rolls his eyes and deletes that email), and has hectored me and numerous others on this strange obsessive need he has to pretend the Church does not say what it says about lying.  I refuse to allow him to do that in this thread, so he is redoubling his obsessive denials of what the Magisterium teaches.  The simple fact is, the Catechism is the principle instrument by which the Magisterium promulgates its teaching.  Is everything in the Catechism de fide, dogma or and expression of the extraordinary magisterium? Of course not.  But it is all magisterial teaching.

Deacon, I will ask you again: go away and leave me alone.

Dear Subsistent—

Another of my comments has been derailed as “potential spam” (so it may appear at some point). Assuming it does not, please observe the important distinction between certain “acts” of the Magisterium and the *teaching* of the Magisterium. My brother in Christ, Mark, is welcome to accuse me and to use shock words like… obsessive (three times above), stalking, hijack, harrass, threatened, hectored, and strange… to color opinion of me. But my comments on this post are interested in one thing—truth. And truth is, Mark doesn’t teach what the Church herself teaches about what her universal catechism is—and is not. And the net result of his error is that it causes division among the faithful. In this post, what I thought at first was a positive development of his thinking has been shown to be incorrect. God bless you, JR

Dear Mark—

You have twice now in these comboxes made public accusation against me that I am making statements contrary to what the Church teaches regarding lying and the Catechism, a subject crucial to understanding the content of your post here at the Register. I ask you to please either substantiate that claim with evidence contradicting my claim or to please withdraw it. Sincerely, Deacon Jim Russell

Regarding the magisterial character of the Catechism (unlike, for example, John Paul’s informal talks in Italian on “theology of the body”),The Catechism was promulgated by the Roman pontiff John Paul II. From Vatican II’s Dogmatic Constitution *Lumen Gentium*, Section 25: “... religious submission of mind and will must be shown ... to the authentic magisterium of the Roman pontiff, even when he is not speaking *ex cathedra*; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will.”
When a pope’s magisterium is not definitive, the interior assent to be given to it is of course provisional; but, as Cardinal Newman indicated in his *Letter to the Duke of Norfolk*, the teaching is “in possession”: the burden of proof against that teaching is on the Catholic who would dissent.

Dear Subsistent—

You have the truth, unfortunately, exactly backwards: JPII’s General Audiences comprising Theology of the Body *are* Magisterial—*teaching* of the ordinary papal magisterium. The Catechism, on the other hand, is promulgated as an *act* of the ordinary papal magisterium, but this promulgating *act* has absolutely NO effect on the level of the teaching authority of each individual doctrine comprising the content of the CCC. “De Fide” isn’t *reduced* to “ordinary papal” by being in the CCC, nor is “common teaching” *elevated* to ordinary papal… I will try to locate the source citation on this from the Intro to the CCC authored by Ratzinger and Schonborn.

Dear Subsistent:

“The individual doctrine which the Catechism presents receive no other weight than that which they already possess. The weight of the Catechism itself lies in the whole. Since it transmits what the Church teaches, whoever rejects it as a whole separates himself beyond question from the faith and teaching of the Church.”....Ratzinger, Cardinal Joseph; Schoenborn, Cardinal Christoph. Introduction to the Catechism of the Catholic Church. San Francisco, Calif.: Ignatius Press, 1994, pp. 25-27.

Just noticed this—Mark wrote:

***The simple fact is, the Catechism is the principle instrument by which the Magisterium promulgates its teaching.***

Mark, there are two definitions of “promulgate”—which do you have in mind?

“A Catechism should faithfully and systematically present the teaching of Sacred Scripture, the living Tradition in the Church and the authentic Magisterium, as well as the spiritual heritage of the Fathers, Doctors, and saints of the Church, to allow for a better knowledge of the Christian mystery and for enlivening the faith of the People of God.” (Apostolic Constitution Fidei Depositum, No. 2)

Dear Subsistent and other readers—the “spiritual heritage of the Fathers, Doctors, and saints of the Church” is apparently IN the CCC, but it is *not* considered part of Scripture, “living Tradition”, or “authentic Magisterium”, correct? So, some of the CCC content is by definition not found in Scripture, Tradition, *or* Magisterium, but in that *non-magisterial* “spiritual heritage”, right?

Once again I’m in need of elucidation about statements on your blog.
“I can pretty much guarantee the Church will *never* give you an official answer, because it’s just not what the teaching office of the Church does,”
I thought the purpose of a Church/religion was to give direct, truthful answers to the Big Questions- why not in re a “Holy Day”? For example:

“obviously, as Catholics we recognize that St Nicholas is a revered saint in the Church and he’s clearly the original inspiration for the fable of Santa Claus.”
But a quick check of newadvent tells me this: “Bishop of Myra in Lycia; died 6 December, 345 or 352. Though he is one of the most popular saints in the Greek as well as the Latin Church, there is scarcely anything historically certain about him except that he was Bishop of Myra in the fourth century.”
Do you have better, perhaps more recent, information about this acknowledged historical figure (Nicholas of Myra)? There is much about Santa Claus here and in other places, but you and others here admit he’s a “fable”. What is the truth?
John 17:17

I am shocked!!! You mean to say there is no Santa Claus? Do any of you
ever read the famous response given in 1897 to a little 8
year old girl, named Virginia O’Hanlon, who asked the editor of the New York Sun if there really was a Santa Claus? Her friends had told her
he did not exist. She asked her Father who answered by suggesting she
write to the Sun and if they answered he did exist it would have to be
true. In response, Francis P. Church wrote his famous “Yes Virginia, there is A Santa Claus”, which has became history’s most reprinted newspaper editorial. I suggest all you skeptics here, including Mark, search this out and learn that most important lesson Virginia O’Hanlon was given over 100 years ago…“Santa exists”, he said, “most certainly as Virginia exists. He exists as certainly as love and generosity and devotion exists”. He had much more to say that you need to hear.
I have been ever convinced that Santa, the holy one, does truly
exist. He is part of the great mystery of faith.  Go read this excellent
editorial and feel free to put out a glass of milk and some cookies. I bet
they will be gone in the morning! You all need a heart that is big enough to include Santa…and Jesus!

Perhaps some of the Catechism’s supportive or illustrative quotes by this or that Doctor or Father of the Church are not properly magisterial. But what is a flat declaration in the principal text, if not magisterial? Such is the sentence (in # 2485): “By its very nature, lying is to be condemned.” Now, what constitutes lying?  # 2483 states in the English version: “To lie is to speak or act against the truth in order to lead into error someone who has the right to know the truth.” This assertion, though perfectly true, is narrower as a definition than the original Latin version, which reads more simply: “To lie is to speak or act against the truth in order to lead someone into error.” “Mentiri est contra veritatem loqui vel agere ad inducendum in errorem.”

Doug:

You aren’t making sense.  What do you want?

Dear “Subsistent”—you wrote:

****But what is a flat declaration in the principal text, if not magisterial? Such is the sentence (in # 2485): ****

Okay, good—so we’ve reached consensus that the CCC contains at least “some” non-magisterial content.

How do we know whether the statements on lying are “magisterial” or not? Well, if they originate with the “authentic magisterium” (as noted above in Fidei Depositim), then they can/should be called “magisterial.”

So, we follow the footnotes. If these statements on lying are “magisterial”, then they exist in authentic magisterial sources that pre-date the CCC, and those sources can be identified.

BUT, the footnotes (and additional research)associated with the CCC statements on lying take us *not* to the “magisterium” (the official teaching promulgated by popes and bishops)—they take us to the “spiritual heritage” of the Fathers and Doctors of the Church—particularly Augustine and Aquinas.

Therefore, the teaching on lying in the CCC is *not* magisterial. It is the part of the “spiritual heritage” of the Church that for centuries has been referred to as the “common teaching of Catholic theologians.”

God bless you,

Deacon JR

Dear Mark—
As it appears fairly certain that you will not charitably engage the substance of my claims about lying and the CCC, I will address the means by which you seek to avoid such engagement: your statement “go away and leave me alone.”

For the record, I *have* gone away and left you alone as it pertains to any and all private communication, which I shall never again engage in unless you invite it. That’s a perfectly reasonable request.

What is not reasonable, however, but rather is a form of petulance, is your ongoing attempt to prevent me from making public comment on your public writing in public forums operated by those who presumably pay you for your work. In this context, I would suggest that if you cannot abide by the terms of charitable and open discourse as envisioned by a respectable entity such as the National Catholic Register, then perhaps you should reserve your writing for those areas of the blogosphere which hold to different standards.

Consider the situation, Mark—you are a Catholic convert (a plus in my book) and an enthusiast for the Catholic faith, yet you possess no academic/theological credentials, have no mandate to teach in the name of the Church, and hold no form of ecclesiastical office. To your credit, you are a good man with a high degree of intelligence and are an ubiquitous and prolific presence in the blogosphere.

Each time you write on subjects associated with Church teaching on lying (like this post about the Santa myth), I continually take exception to your stance. Why? Why does a cleric whose rank in the Church mandates him to teach the Catholic faith in the name of the Church continually respond with the same message? Is it because I’m an “obsessive” “stalker”? Really? Or might it be because there really is a substantial error in your presentation?

Surely you’ve heard of the spiritual works of mercy, and surely you can appreciate that if I believe that every time you bring up this subject matter you risk dividing the faithful unnecessarily, I’m going to feel obligated to challenge your view? It seems ironic to suggest I’m being “obsessive” when any comment I make is always a bookend to something you publicly say that is related to the core error you are making…

So, once and for all, why not simply engage the *substance* of the issues I raise instead of deflecting from the substance by shooting the messenger and dismissing me personally in the manner you do above? You are capable of much more reasoned and charitable discourse than what’s on display here…

God bless you, and be assured of my prayers. But please know that when you freely choose to write publicly on this issue, as a cleric mandated to teach in the name of the Church, I will respond to correct the error you espouse and I’ll continue to faithfully express the truth as best I can.

Deacon Jim Russell

Dear Mark—
As it appears fairly certain that you will not charitably engage the substance of my claims about lying and the CCC, I will address the means by which you seek to avoid such engagement: your statement “go away and leave me alone.”

For the record, I *have* gone away and left you alone as it pertains to any and all private communication, which I shall never again engage in unless you invite it. That’s a perfectly reasonable request.

What is not reasonable, however, but rather is a form of petulance, is your ongoing attempt to prevent me from making public comment on your public writing in public forums operated by those who presumably pay you for your work. In this context, I would suggest that if you cannot abide by the terms of charitable and open discourse as envisioned by a respectable entity such as the National Catholic Register, then perhaps you should reserve your writing for those areas of the blogosphere which hold to different standards.
[continued]

Consider the situation, Mark—you are a Catholic convert (a plus in my book) and an enthusiast for the Catholic faith, yet you possess no academic/theological credentials, have no mandate to teach in the name of the Church, and hold no form of ecclesiastical office. To your credit, you are a good man with a high degree of intelligence and are an ubiquitous and prolific presence in the blogosphere.

Each time you write on subjects associated with Church teaching on lying (like this post about the Santa myth), I continually take exception to your stance. Why? Why does a cleric whose rank in the Church mandates him to teach the Catholic faith in the name of the Church continually respond with the same message? Is it because I’m an “obsessive” “stalker”? Really? Or might it be because there really is a substantial error in your presentation?

Surely you’ve heard of the spiritual works of mercy, and surely you can appreciate that if I believe that every time you bring up this subject matter you risk dividing the faithful unnecessarily, I’m going to feel obligated to challenge your view? It seems ironic to suggest I’m being “obsessive” when any comment I make is always a bookend to something you publicly say that is related to the core error you are making…
[continued]

Consider the situation, Mark—you are a Catholic convert (a plus in my book) and an enthusiast for the Catholic faith, yet you possess no academic/theological credentials, have no mandate to teach in the name of the Church, and hold no form of ecclesiastical office. To your credit, you are a good man with a high degree of intelligence and are an ubiquitous and prolific presence in the blogosphere.
Each time you write on subjects associated with Church teaching on lying (like this post about the Santa myth), I continually take exception to your stance. Why? Why does a cleric whose rank in the Church mandates him to teach the Catholic faith in the name of the Church continually respond with the same message? Is it because I’m an “obsessive” “stalker”? Really? Or might it be because there really is a substantial error in your presentation?
Surely you’ve heard of the spiritual works of mercy, and surely you can appreciate that if I believe that every time you bring up this subject matter you risk dividing the faithful unnecessarily, I’m going to feel obligated to challenge your view? It seems ironic to suggest I’m being “obsessive” when any comment I make is always a bookend to something you publicly say that is related to the core error you are making…[continued]

[continued] Consider the situation, Mark—you are a Catholic convert (a plus in my book) and an enthusiast for the Catholic faith, yet you possess no academic/theological credentials, have no mandate to teach in the name of the Church, and hold no form of ecclesiastical office. To your credit, you are a good man with a high degree of intelligence and are an ubiquitous and prolific presence in the blogosphere.
Each time you write on subjects associated with Church teaching on lying (like this post about the Santa myth), I continually take exception to your stance. Why? Why does a cleric whose rank in the Church mandates him to teach the Catholic faith in the name of the Church continually respond with the same message? Is it because I’m an “obsessive” “stalker”? Really? Or might it be because there really is a substantial error in your presentation?
Surely you’ve heard of the spiritual works of mercy, and surely you can appreciate that if I believe that every time you bring up this subject matter you risk dividing the faithful unnecessarily, I’m going to feel obligated to challenge your view? It seems ironic to suggest I’m being “obsessive” when any comment I make is always a bookend to something you publicly say that is related to the core error you are making…
So, once and for all, why not simply engage the *substance* of the issues I raise instead of deflecting from the substance by shooting the messenger and dismissing me personally in the manner you do above? You are capable of much more reasoned and charitable discourse than what’s on display here…
God bless you, and be assured of my prayers. But please know that when you freely choose to write publicly on this issue, as a cleric mandated to teach in the name of the Church, I will continue responding to correct the error you continue to espouse and I’ll continue to faithfully express the truth as best I can.
Deacon Jim Russell

Consider the situation, Mark—you are a Catholic convert (a plus in my book) and an enthusiast for the Catholic faith, yet you possess no academic/theological credentials, have no mandate to teach in the name of the Church, and hold no form of ecclesiastical office. To your credit, you are a good man with a high degree of intelligence and are an ubiquitous and prolific presence in the blogosphere.
Each time you write on subjects associated with Church teaching on lying (like this post about the Santa myth), I continually take exception to your stance. Why? Why does a cleric whose rank in the Church mandates him to teach the Catholic faith in the name of the Church continually respond with the same message? Is it because I’m an “obsessive” “stalker”? Really? Or might it be because there really is a substantial error in your presentation?

Surely you’ve heard of the spiritual works of mercy, and surely you can appreciate that if I believe that every time you bring up this subject matter you risk dividing the faithful unnecessarily, I’m going to feel obligated to challenge your view? It seems ironic to suggest I’m being “obsessive” when any comment I make is always a bookend to something you publicly say that is related to the core error you are making…[continued]
So, once and for all, why not simply engage the *substance* of the issues I raise instead of deflecting from the substance by shooting the messenger and dismissing me personally in the manner you do above? You are capable of much more reasoned and charitable discourse than what’s on display here…
God bless you, and be assured of my prayers. But please know that when you freely choose to write publicly on this issue, as a cleric mandated to teach in the name of the Church, I will continue responding to correct the error you continue to espouse and I’ll continue to faithfully express the truth as best I can.

As far as I can see, in maintaining that Pope John Paul’s Catechism is magisterial only insofar as it has in it statements already magisterial on some other account, a certain comboxer here is taking basically the same view of it which John Henry Cardinal Newman took of Pope Pius IX’s Syllabus of Errors, in part 7 (“The Syllabus”) of his *Letter to the Duke of Norfolk*. (Newman there defended his take with his characteristic detailed knowledge and analysis.) So the issue seems to be, Is a universal Catechism—which, like a papal Encyclical, makes on its own authority a large number of peremptory statements—no more magisterial than a syllabus, a resumé, a collection of errors which a pope had denounced on previous occasions—a resumé which itself hardly even made any doctrinal statements on its own?
The said comboxer, from his phrase “the “magisterium” (the official teaching promulgated by popes and bishops)”, apparently thinks the Catechism is not itself an instance of “official teaching promulgated by popes and bishops”.

Hi, “Subsistent”—

I will stand alongside what JPII himself says when he approved and published the CCC on Oct 11, 1992:
“Therefore, I ask all the Church’s Pastors and the Christian faithful to receive this catechism in a spirit of communion and to use it assiduously in fulfilling their mission of proclaiming the faith and calling people to the Gospel life. This catechism is given to them that it may be a sure and authentic reference text for teaching catholic doctrine and particularly for preparing local catechisms. It is also offered to all the faithful who wish to deepen their knowledge of the unfathomable riches of salvation (cf. Eph. 3:8)....”

Please note what the Holy Father says he is approving and ordering to be published—a “reference text.” Earlier he declares it a “sure norm for teaching the faith”. And it is. But this is quite distinct from the Pontiff “promulgating” an encyclical or teaching *directly* from his ordinary papal magisterium. Also note that one of its main purposes is *not* to supplant or supersede local catechisms but is intended to *inspire* them. Does the CCC contain the “core” of official magisterial teaching? Of course it does. But it contains *more* than that, too—and the teaching on lying that pertains to the “Santa mythos” is “common teaching” originating with the Church’s theologians and *not* with the Church’s Magisterium….

Hi, “Subsistent”—I will stand alongside what JPII himself says when he approved and published the CCC on Oct 11, 1992: “Therefore, I ask all the Church’s Pastors and the Christian faithful to receive this catechism in a spirit of communion and to use it assiduously in fulfilling their mission of proclaiming the faith and calling people to the Gospel life. This catechism is given to them that it may be a sure and authentic reference text for teaching catholic doctrine and particularly for preparing local catechisms. It is also offered to all the faithful who wish to deepen their knowledge of the unfathomable riches of salvation (cf. Eph. 3:8)....”
Please note what the Holy Father says he is approving and ordering to be published—a “reference text.” Earlier he declares it a “sure norm for teaching the faith”. And it is. But this is quite distinct from the Pontiff “promulgating” an encyclical or teaching *directly* from his ordinary papal magisterium. Also note that one of its main purposes is *not* to supplant or supersede local catechisms but is intended to *inspire* them. Does the CCC contain the “core” of official magisterial teaching? Of course it does. But it contains *more* than that, too—and the teaching on lying that pertains to the “Santa mythos” is “common teaching” originating with the Church’s theologians and *not* with the Church’s Magisterium….

Hi, “Subsistent”—I will stand alongside what JPII himself says when he approved and published the CCC on Oct 11, 1992: “Therefore, I ask all the Church’s Pastors and the Christian faithful to receive this catechism in a spirit of communion and to use it assiduously in fulfilling their mission of proclaiming the faith and calling people to the Gospel life. This catechism is given to them that it may be a sure and authentic reference text for teaching catholic doctrine and particularly for preparing local catechisms. It is also offered to all the faithful who wish to deepen their knowledge of the unfathomable riches of salvation (cf. Eph. 3:8)....”

Please note what the Holy Father says he is approving and ordering to be published—a “reference text.” Earlier he declares it a “sure norm for teaching the faith”. And it is. But this is quite distinct from the Pontiff “promulgating” an encyclical or teaching *directly* from his ordinary papal magisterium. Also note that one of its main purposes is *not* to supplant or supersede local catechisms but is intended to *inspire* them. Does the CCC contain the “core” of official magisterial teaching? Of course it does. But it contains *more* than that, too—and the teaching on lying that pertains to the “Santa mythos” is “common teaching” originating with the Church’s theologians and *not* with the Church’s Magisterium….

It’s quite true, I think, that what’s “De Fide” isn’t *reduced* by being in the CCC’s ordinary magisterium; nor does “common teaching”, if it’s really COMMON teaching, and not just this or that Church Doctor’s quoted remark, need to be *elevated* to the CCC’s ordinary magisterium by being stated therein, for the simple reason that really common Catholic teaching is ALREADY magisterial thru the ordinary magisterium. Being a reference text, the CCC purports to break no new doctrinal ground. But it authoritatively states peremptorily, as being the already commonly (altho obviously not universally) accepted Catholic teaching: “To lie is to speak or act against truth in order to lead someone into error.”  And: “By its very nature, lying is to be condemned.”

But no, Subsistent, that’s actually the whole point of *distinguishing* “common teaching” from what is magisterial. “Common teaching of *theologians*” is by definition not magisterial.  “Common teaching” is quite changeable, whereas magisterial teaching is not…
Consider, please, the example of the “common teaching of Catholic theologians” on the existence of a “limbo of the infants” as an opinion about what happens to unbaptized infants if they die. This teaching was quite prevalent—even among *bishops* (such as Fulton Sheen, who I’ve heard teach the existence of this “limbo”—at one time. But it’s *not* the teaching of the *magisterium*. Indeed the CCC never mentions this “limbo” of the infants, and the Internation Theological Commission’s study of the issue several years back concluded that other opinions are permissible, alongside this formerly “common teaching.” Common teaching of Catholic theologians—such as Augustine and Aquinas’ teaching on lying—is not magisterial….God bless, DeaconJR

And a final text to consider from the CCC itself:
****CCC #11: This catechism aims at presenting an organic synthesis of the essential and fundamental contents of Catholic doctrine, as regards both faith and morals, in the light of the Second Vatican Council and the whole of the Church’s Tradition. Its principal sources are the Sacred Scriptures, the Fathers of the Church, the liturgy, and the Church’s Magisterium. It is intended to serve “as a point of reference for the catechisms or compendia that are composed in the various countries”.****
Please note that the “Church’s Magisterium” is listed as only *one* of the principal four sources. It’s clear, then, that the category “Fathers of the Church” is not part of the category “Church’s Magisterium.” And it’s also that, when JPII approved this “reference text” and ordered it to be published, he was *not* “magisterializing” the Fathers of the Church…God bless, Deacon JR

Merry Christmas, Mark!

Speaking of suspension of disbelief, has DeaconJR really argued that a CCC footnote that leads to Augustin and Aquinas is not magisterial teaching because the current popes and bishops have not repeated it?

I sure hope he isn’t a real deacon.  DeaconJR’s gospel of “now” is a thin soup compared to the feast of sensible nutrition in the real gospels and Tradition, that you and the CCC witnesses to and proclaims.

Hi, Forrest—
I guess I am a real deacon, but you can inquire with the Archbishop who ordained me…
Of course, your characterization above is *not* what I claimed—recommend you read through the comments.
Also might want to wrestle with Ludwig Ott’s definition of “common teaching” from his “Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma”: “Common teaching (sententia communis) is doctrine, which in itself belongs to the field of the free opinions, but which is accepted by theologians generally.”
Also might want to examine the online “Catholic Encyclopedia” article on the subject of “Lying,” which states: “But if the common teaching of Catholic theology on this point be admitted, and we grant that lying is always wrong, it follows that we are never justified in telling a lie, for we may not do evil that good may come: the end does not justify the means.”
So, Forrest, there you have it—the CCC content on lying referred as “common teaching of Catholic theology” by the Catholic Encyclopedia, plus Ott’s definition of common teaching. So it’s your turn—tell me again how this common teaching is “magisterial”? God bless you, Deacon JR

I admit that “common teaching of theologians” is not magisterial. But by “common teaching” I meant the common and traditional peremptory teaching worldwide of the bishops themselves in union with the bishop of Rome.
Since the CCC, being a reference text, purports to break no new doctrinal ground, it does not contradict the theologic view of some in the Western Church who have held that unbaptized infants would never have Beatific Vision, altho it denies certainty to that view, in stating (# 1261) that God’s beneficent love “allows us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without baptism”, and (# 1257) that “God has bound salvation to the sacrament of baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.” But the CCC’s same reference text, again breaking no new doctrinal ground, states peremptorily and authoritatively the Church’s traditional doctrine that lying, i.e. speaking or acting against truth in order to lead someone into error, “by its very nature, sua natura, is to be condemned.”

Deacon,

Thank you for your reply.

In that same Catholic Encyclopedia article….

“The doctrine which has been expounded above reproduces the common and universally accepted teaching of the Catholic schools throughout the Middle Ages until recent times.”

Are we not charged with understanding and teaching one Truth? “I urge you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree in what you say, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and in the same purpose.”

Perhaps you will disagree with Mark.  Do you hold the magisterium, doctrine, common teachings, and the gospels are divided?

I believe the freedom to disagree and act counter to common teaching is not as large as many hope on Lying or any other matter. I know enough Latin to appreciate the full understanding of the phrase “sententia communis” is deep. (I would say “Common teaching” is nearly a lie if it be the translation.)

We do not follow the gospel in order to be free to proclaim it in a way which will cause others to sin.  God is simple.  We make it complicated.  Having to divide teaching into magisterial, gospel, etc, in order to extract a justification opposite to what the teachings have on their face is not good witness.  At best, such contorted witness is reserved for extremely rare, special, and private circumstances, under the direction of an experienced spiritual adviser who has completed specialized study of moral theology, and not the peanut gallery of blogs.

I praise God for forming and sustaining a church which has the grace to ordain sinners and make the laity witnesses.  I pray often that Pride be always overcome by Truth.

I admit that a “common teaching of theologians” is not thereby magisterial. But by “common teaching” I meant rather the common and traditional peremptory teaching worldwide of the bishops themselves in union with the bishop of Rome. Since the CCC, being a reference text, purports to break no new doctrinal ground, it does not contradict the theologic view of some in the Western Church who have held that unbaptized infants would never have Beatific Vision, altho it denies certainty to that view, in stating (# 1261) that God’s beneficent love “allows us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without baptism”, and (# 1257) that “God has bound salvation to the sacrament of baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.” But the CCC’s same reference text, again breaking no new doctrinal ground, states peremptorily and authoritatively the Church’s traditional doctrine that lying, i.e. speaking or acting against truth in order to lead someone into error, “by its very nature, sua natura, is to be condemned.”

Michael:  You are correct about stage magic, ventriloquism (and I would add, acting, fiction, and all other speech acts which involve not deceit but “willing suspension of disbelief”.  Precisely the distinction between fiction and lying is that with fiction, the viewer knows that Ian McKellen is not really Gandalf, the reader knows that there was no really a Hobbit who lived in a hole in the ground, and the audience knows that the magician is not really producing a rabbit from thin air.  In the same way, it is possible to indulge the Santa Mythos as fiction, not lying.  And the complexities of how that might by done from family to family are too many to enumerate.  Further, even those who really do deceive their children and teach them to believe in his magical world-spanning journey each Christmas are typically doing so with non-existent levels of culpability and usually have no malicious intent in mind, so judgments about sin are not for us to make.  However, I would be remiss in pointing out that there is indeed a difference between fiction and deceit and that the Church’s teaching about lying (plus common sense about how people react when the discover they have been deceived) suggests that parents should make certain children understand that Santa is fictional, lest they conclude that Jesus is a lie too.

Merry Christmas, Mark, to you and your family. Hoping the new year sees us closer than we appear to be at the moment.
God bless you,
Deacon JR

Mark:
I thought the purpose of a Church/religion was to give direct, truthful answers to the Big Questions- why not in re one of a religion’s “Holy Day”? So, what is the truth? (It would have saved many posters the trouble of looking up “lie” in their CCC, and perhaps would have encouraged study of Jesus’ earthly course instead. As encouraged by B16.)
The truth isn’t Santa Claus, which you correctly term a “fable”. Isn’t Nicholas, who had nothing to do with the birthday of Jesus. So, what, then?

Doug:  The Church does not function by the rule “That which is not forbidden is compulsory.”  Nor is she an ideology.  And ideology proposes to have an all-explaining theory of absolutely everything.  The Church, in contrast, preserves a few core truths about life, the universe, and everything (summed up in the Creed) and leaves people free to live out the normal human impulse to tell stories, create art, and enjoy legends.  So she has nothing against folk tales growing up around real historical figures (like St. Nicholas of Myra, whose real acts of charity wound up inspiring folk customs of gift-giving on his feast day (December 6) and (when that feast was suppressed in Protestant countries) wound up with folks associating the gift-giving (and him) with Christmas.  Bowdlerized German and Dutch variations of his name became Santa Claus in English and various folk customs passed down to us.  Calling that “lying” is like calling fiction “lying”.  It’s just how folk culture works.  The Church, being rooted in common sense, neither can nor should trying to treat that with police state regimentation and doesn’t.  Instead, she holds fast to the core (namely, the Feast Day on December 6 that commemorates the real saint) and sits back to enjoy the folk customs that do nobody any harm.

Here and here are two essays that might give you a better feel for what the Church does and does not do in its official teaching.

I can admit that a “common teaching of theologians” is not thereby magisterial. But by “common teaching” I meant rather the common and traditional peremptory teaching of the generality of the bishops themselves in union with the bishop of Rome. Since the CCC, being a reference text, purports to break no new doctrinal ground, it does not contradict the theologic view of some in the Western Church who have held that unbaptized infants would never have Beatific Vision, altho it denies certainty to that view, in stating (# 1261) that God’s beneficent love “allows us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without baptism”, and (# 1257) that “God has bound salvation to the sacrament of baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.” But the CCC’s same reference text, again breaking no new doctrinal ground, states peremptorily and authoritatively the Church’s traditional doctrine that lying, i.e. speaking or acting against truth in order to lead someone into error, “by its very nature, is to be condemned.”

There is a beautiful sense of magic and wonder in believing in Santa as a child. I am grateful I had that experience. I think I would have been bitter if my parents didn’t play along.(I guess probably though some kids feel superior knowing the truth.) The belief faded as I grew and learned. There was never a moment of devastation or feeling lied to. (Families are all so different though, I can see how it could happen.) Modern life with scientific advances and discoveries is peeling the layers of mystery from the world. There is little magic and wonder left. The sense of magic and wonder is a good thing—it’s a hint of the magnificence of the Divine. I learned this later when my faith deepened. I don’t think the Santa tradition is important or even particularly useful for faith, but I think it brings great happiness to children, and why not. I see that it could be done poorly, but I don’t think that happens much. I think parents find joy in delighting their children this way, (it can remind us of how God delights in surprising us with his graces) and the children find joy, and experience that sense of wonder that is such a fun part of childhood. I can’t imagine that my children would ever equate Santa with Jesus. Jesus looms much larger in our lives, every day. Santa is once a year, and even then he’s second fiddle. I know a few people who don’t “do” Santa, and it seems kind of boring and joyless. (I’m sure it wasn’t so in the Shea household!) On a related subject, my daughter and her friend like to make little houses in the yard for the fairies to visit. More than once another child has told them “that’s dumb, fairies aren’t real.” Well, duh, they’ll learn soon enough. But he’s correcting a falsehood, right? Better they don’t believe a lie? I think it’s easy to get scrupulous about these things.

That a “common teaching of [Catholic] theologians” is not in itself magisterial in the sense in which the Church is “Magistra”, I can admit. But that a common peremptory teaching of the Catholic Church’s bishops is not thus magisterial, I must deny.

I am one of those that was taught Santa was real, then my faith was shattered on Christmas day when I was 5. I struggled with Faith for years after that…if they lied to me about Santa…what about Jesus?  It’s a logical step for a child to ask.  So glad to know the Catholic Church is in agreement that teaching lies isn’t a faith filled activity.
As for the Deacon & Mark’s dialogue…with all charity, I say it might be best to take this conversation offline. It doesn’t look like a teaching moment but something else. I have no “skin” in this game, just giving a casual reader’s input… Merry Christmas.

  In 1931, the Coca Cola Corporation contracted the Swedish commercial artist Haddon Sundblom to create a coke-drinking Santa.  Sundblom modeled his Santa on his friend Lou Prentice, chosen for his cheerful, chubby face.  The corporation insisted that Santa’s fur-trimmed suit be bright, Coca Cola red.  And Santa was born – a blend of Christian crusader, pagan god, and commercial idol.
.
I don’t lie to my kids about Santa Claus—it’s just become a cheap advertising gimmick.

Mark: Sorry it took me so long to reply; I lost track of this post.
You write, “The Church, in contrast, preserves a few core truths about life, the universe, and everything (summed up in the Creed)” and “leaves people free to live out the normal human impulse to tell stories, create art, and enjoy legends.”
To the first clause, I certainly hope any religion does that, getting the information from the only true, self-admitted source- its God.
To the second, what happens when these ‘stories, art and legends’ contradict or even muddy the godly source material? Does Paul’s counsel at 1 Tim 4:7 apply here? Or Eph 4:5?

Almost no religion except apostolic Christianity has creeds since most do not require preservation of a memory of events that actually occurred nor of the meaning of those events.

Re: your second question, precisely the function of the Magisterium is, in part to distinguish apostolic Tradition from mere human traditions.  Not that human traditions are bad.  The world teems with them.  But the Church’s job is to distinguish merely human traditions from the Tradition of God that comes to us in Scripture and the unwritten tradition of the apostles.  My recommendation: get ahold of my book By What Authority? (you can get it used from Amazon for cheap) and learn a bit about this.

I have passed on the story of Santa Claus to my children.  It has been a delightful adventure for them.  Had I considered for a moment that this would cause doubt in belief in Truth, I would not have done so.  Had I observed a weakness in my children’s faith or an inordinate facile fascination in Santa Claus, I would have acted accordingly.  We each have responsibilities unique to our children’s disposition.  We have left cookies and milk for Santa which have been disappeared by morning with a note of thanks from the good Claus.  Packages have been left from him in unique handwriting and wrapping.  we have tracked Santa’s progress on NORAD’s website.  My children are in a great Catholic school and know Who Jesus is.  They have learned at the proper time and it has actually helped our discussion about metaphysical reality.  There has been no harm in our family and I will encourage the story to my grandchildren some day.  Thanks, Mark, for your prudence in thus discussion.

I dont know… i woke up to jingling bells early christmas morning…. it was my dogs christmas collar, but still i was excited for a moment. Whether or not you feel that letting you kids figure out santa isnt real is good, you ought to tell them about santa. Even with the knowlage of his being a myth, its still loads of fun

This is the kind of hand-wringing literalism that makes Catholicism appear to be what it is not.  I would suggest we stop reading Tolkien, Lewis and Dante for that matter.
Fairies, elves?  Mr. Alighieri actually going down into hell?

“Fairy Tales are more than true; not because they tell us that dragons exist, but because they tell us that dragons can be beaten.”

Santa opens a world of wonder and expectation that helps us see what Christmas is all about.  Oh, and I still tell my kids that there are fairies in “the wood”.

Dan Hoffman