10/17/14 Landscapes of the Sacred: Common is Uncommon?

            “Dorothy Day once said of property: the more common it becomes, the more holy it is” (Lane p.65). I completely disagree with her theory; it makes no sense and contradicts the idea of holiness. If something is holy, isn’t it supposed to be at least uncommon? What makes something ‘holy’ is not that it is common; it is that it is not common to those who don’t find it sacred. Let’s say an individual has a sacred place such as the playground of an old primary school. This place would be sacred to him as long as he is alone there, by himself. The second people start to intrude on his ‘holy’ ground, it ruins the moment, therefore making this, now common, ground unsacred and unholy to the individual. “Common things, common actions, common relationships are all granted new definition because the holy has once and for all become ordinary” (Lane p.66). Yet when this happens, it should technically become even less holy. Look at the definition of the word holy: specially recognized as or declared sacred by religious use or authority. Religions are based around their own beliefs. If something holy or religious was ‘common’ then is wouldn’t be unique to the religion, making the holy, unholy.  Furthering my point that something cannot become more holy, by becoming more common. It contradicts the actual definition of holy, making it wrong twice. I just wanted to voice my opinion on this, because I thought it was wrong, when I was reading through the Landscapes of the Sacred.