In the News: Pope in Turkey

In a semi-historic trip to Turkey, Pope Benedict XVI has been meeting with secular and clerical leaders and holding out an olive branch to groups he has previously held in less repute.

At his visit yesterday to the supposed home of the Virgin Mary, he prayed in Turkish. During his trip today to the Blue Mosque, he took noff his shoes and spent a minute in "meditation." Also, according to NCR

In a divine liturgy celebrated today at the Phanar, the headquarters of the Patriarch of Constantinople, Pope Benedict XVI pledged that “the Catholic Church is ready to do everything possible” to promote unity between the 250 million Orthodox believers in the world and the roughly 1.1 billion Roman Catholics.

While the seeming sounds of nrotherhood and unity sound terrific, it's an open question this sounds to a group that equates promises of "unity" with assimilation and disappeaance.

As far as the world of Islam is concerned, what need does it have to cionciliate with its ancient foe? Catholicism, for all its putative numerical strength, is terribly weak. The ancient traditiuons of celibacy, opposition to female leadership and opposition to birth control have strained the Church's intellectual vitality and credibility to the breaking point. The cclergy sex abusse scandals, as well as old scandals that are just coming to light, is sapping the Church's moral authority and claim to divine protection.

Benedict is also still banging on the drum of Europe's all-but-lost Catholic heritage. In a common declaration with the Patriarch of Constantinople, he said,
“The process of secularization has weakened the hold of that tradition,” he said.

“Indeed, it is being called into question, and even rejected. In the face of this reality, we are called, together with all Christian communities, to renew Europe’s awareness of its Christian roots, traditions and values, giving them new vitality....In Europe, while remaining open to other religions and to their cultural contributions, we must unite our efforts to preserve Christian roots, traditions and values, to ensure respect for history,”

What this might mean in realistic terms is anyone's guess -- anything on the spectrum from benign tolerance to legislating benefits to Catholic to out-and-out crusade are possible. Without specific goals, such high-fflying rhetoric is all but meaningless.

The Church should reach out to other Chriotian sects and to non-Christians. But the Church cannot simultaneously ask for unity while maintaining the very teachings, practices and attiutudes that caused the splits in the first place. Insisting on Roman primacy over all Christians, insisting on unmarried clergy and insisting on an intellectually dishonest retention of the ban on birth ccontrol and female priesthood will do nothing to attract lapsed Catholics- not to mention sects whose beliefs and traditions are furtther afield.

Without the kind of creativity and flexibility that ewas never on display when Pope Benedict was Cardinal Ratzinger, there's little hope that this latest trip will be nothing more than a photo op, and an opportunity to fill coffee table books with pretty and irrelevant pictures.

BishopWatch: NCR dismayed!

A terrific editorial in the November 24, 2006 issue of The National Catholic Reporter. Seems that our bishops, incapable of dealing with the real world, are retreating into the comfortable world of old customs and old vestments. They may not be able to win our hearts or influence our minds, but dahling, they can look fabulous!

Excerpts:

Not bad for melodrama

A year ago we ... noted that there was war and starvation everywhere; fresh clergy sex abuse reports out of Philadelphia, Los Angeles, and Spokane, Wash., to name a few; 20 percent of U.S. parishes without a pastor; a Congress poised to reduce health care coverage and food stamps; the United States accused of torture and keeping combatants in secret prisons; and so on. And the bishops had nothing to say. They would talk only to each other about internal church matters.

We are compelled, then, to report that the bishops have not entirely disappeared. For they gathered again, in Baltimore this year, and, continuing their trip inward, issued documents on such burning issues as birth control, ministry to persons with “a homosexual inclination,” and how to prepare to receive Communion. Now, none of these matters is unimportant. Don’t get the wrong impression. We’ve had documents aplenty about all of them before. And these topics -- unlike the war in Iraq, say, or what it means to have a president and vice president endorsing torture -- are even covered in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

So why again? Apparently the bishops feel that people just aren’t listening. If that’s their hunch, we’d agree. Why aren’t they listening? Let’s consider for starters the document on contraception. A lot of the U.S. bishops today might say there are a lot of bad, or at least ignorant, Catholics out there, Catholics influenced by the contraceptive culture, for instance, who no longer know good from evil.

Maybe they’re right. More likely, though, it’s because the teaching makes little sense, doesn’t match the experience of lay Catholics and tends to reduce all of human love to the act of breeding.

In short, the bishops aren’t terribly persuasive or clear when they talk about sex, and they tend to want to talk about sex a lot. To be sure, they say lots of lovely and lofty things about marital love, about how it completes people and cooperates with God’s plan and fills married lives with joy and happiness. You can want not to have children, say the bishops, you just can’t do anything “unnatural” about it. It’s a strange concept, like not wanting to die of heart disease while not doing anything “unnatural” about it.

They make the point that if every time a married couple makes love they are not open to having children, then they’re not giving “all” of themselves to each other. If you use birth control, say the bishops, and every single act is not open to having children, then “being responsible about sex simply means limiting its consequences -- avoiding disease and using contraceptives to prevent pregnancy.” Whew! So that’s it, eh?

It’s either be open to having kids or married sex is no more significant than an encounter with a prostitute. Such a view of marriage and sexuality and sexual intimacy can only have been written by people straining mightily to fit the mysteries, fullness and candidly human pleasure of sex into a schema that violently divides the human person into unrecognizable parts. There’s a reason 96 percent of Catholics have ignored the birth control teaching for decades. We doubt the new document will significantly change that percentage.

So it is with gays. Here again, church authorities try to fit together two wildly diverging themes. They go something like this: Homosexuals are “objectively disordered” (that’s about as bad as it humanly gets, in our understanding of things), but we love them and want them to be members of our community.

Only this time out, the bishops are not using the term homosexual “orientation” (a definite position) but homosexual “inclination” (a liking for something or a tendency toward). Sly, no? The inference to be drawn, we presume, is that someone inclined one way can just incline another way, whereas someone with an orientation is pretty much stuck there.

That science and human experience generally say otherwise is of little concern, apparently, though the bishops were clear they weren’t suggesting that homosexuals are required to change. This time, too, the bishops, while acknowledging that those with homosexual tendencies should seek supportive friendships, advise homosexuals to be quiet about their inclinations in church. “For some persons, revealing their homosexual tendencies to certain close friends, family members, a spiritual director, confessor, or members of a church support group may provide some spiritual and emotional help and aid them in their growth in Christian life. In the context of parish life, however, general public self-disclosures are not helpful and should not be encouraged.”

The next paragraph in the document, by the way, begins, “Sad to say, there are many persons with a homosexual inclination who feel alienated from the church.” You can’t make this stuff up.

It is difficult to figure out how to approach these documents. They are products of some realm so removed from the real lives of the faithful one has to wonder why any group of busy men administering a church would bother. They ignore science, human experience and the groups they attempt to characterize. The documents are not only embarrassing but insulting and degrading to those the bishops are charged to lead. The saddest thing is that the valuable insights the bishops have into the deficiencies and influences of the wider culture get buried.

Where is this all going?

No one’s come out with a program, but we’ll venture yet one more hunch. It has become apparent in recent years that there’s been an upsurge in historical ecclesiastical finery and other goods. We’ve seen more birettas (those funny three-peak hats with the fuzzy ball on top that come in different colors depending on clerical rank) and cassocks (the kind with real buttons, no zippers for the purists) and ecclesiastically correct color shoes and socks, lots of lacy surplices and even the capa magna (yards and yards of silk, a cape long enough that it has to be attended by two altar boys or seminarians, also in full regalia). In some places they’re even naming monsignors again.

It’s as if someone has discovered a props closet full of old stuff and they’re putting it out all over the stage. Bishops, pestered by the abuse scandal that they’ve avoided looking full in the face, find it easier to try to order others’ lives. They have found the things of a more settled time, a time when their authority wasn’t dependent on persuading or relating to other humans. It was enough to have the office and the clothing. Things worked. Dig a little deeper in the closet and bring out the Latin texts, bring back the old documents, bring back the days when homosexuals were quiet and told no one about who they essentially are. Someone even found a canopy under which the royally clad leader can process.

Now that’s order.

Now that’s the church.

Bring up the lights a little higher so all can see.

Before it all fades to irrelevance.

In the News: Partisan Preachers

From the Boston Globe on Oct 27, a terrific piece describing the problem of the pulpit being used to preach not Jesus, but politics, What I am curious is whether he IRS will enforce its rules across he board, or only when the enemies of a current administration cross the line, as in this article. If so, we will have gone all the way toweard politicizing religion, something I am sure would set the Founding Fathers spinning in their graves.

Clergy warned on partisan preaching
Several faiths act to keep tax status

By Michael Paulson, Globe Staff | October 27, 2006

In the face of increased federal scrutiny of politics in the pulpit, religious denominations are warning clergy against overtly partisan preaching.

As Election Day approaches, with the Massachusetts governorship and both houses of Congress up for grabs, the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Boston has sent a memo to all priests instructing them not to provide parish directories to political candidates, not to allow the distribution of campaign literature on church property, and not to express support or opposition for political candidates.

The memo warns explicitly that the tax-exempt status of the Archdiocese of Boston could be at risk if those rules are violated.

The Reform Jewish movement, the largest Jewish denomination in the country, took a similar step last week, holding a conference call with more than 200 rabbis and synagogue administrators around the country to offer guidance about how to preach on politics without running afoul of the nation's tax code.

And the Unitarian Universalist Association, which is headquartered in Boston, is revamping an Internet page that guides clergy about political preaching in light of new IRS guidelines for churches.

The increased concern among religious denominations has been triggered by a highly publicized IRS investigation into All Saints Church, an Episcopal parish in Pasadena, Calif., where a preacher in 2004 mused aloud, in a sermon, about a hypothetical debate between Jesus and the two major-party candidates for president, President George W. Bush and US Senator John F. Kerry. The church is now refusing to comply with a summons for a copy of all written and oral communications identifying candidates for public office in 2004; the IRS, which issued the summons, is investigating whether the sermon, in which the preacher imagined Jesus criticizing the war in Iraq, constituted illegal advocacy for the Kerry campaign.

"Religious people on all sides of the political spectrum are speaking out more, and as the nation has become more partisan, and the level of public discourse has become more politicized and negative, that has brought us to this point, and has brought more scrutiny from the IRS," said Rob Keithan , director of the Washington office of the Unitarian Universalist Association, which is known for liberal politics. "The All Saints case did have a big impact -- it gave us all occasion to talk about whether we have our own houses in order."

Political campaign activity by churches and other nonprofits was barred by Congress in 1954, but enforcement activity has intensified dramatically in the last two years, as liberals accuse evangelical churches and conservatives accuse African-American churches of routinely violating the law. One website, ratoutachurch.org, solicits allegations about politicking in liberal congregations. The IRS said that it has completed 87 audits of churches and charities accused of violations during the 2004 election campaigns, and the violations were found in 71 percent of the cases.

The regulations bar churches from endorsing or opposing candidates, but permit discussion of issues. Clergy can endorse candidates as individuals; currently, in Massachusetts, the gubernatorial campaign of Democrat Deval Patrick is circulating a letter to clergy, "to help them get involved with the campaign as individuals if they choose," according to campaign spokeswoman Libby DeVecchi.

The recent memo to Catholic priests in the Archdiocese of Boston was similar to one sent to all Catholic priests in the state, according to Edward F. Saunders Jr. , the executive director of the Massachusetts Catholic Conference, who said he thought it would be prudent for all four bishops to clarify the rules for priests.

"We had heard some priests were being approached to do things -- there were various voter guides floating around, and we wanted to make sure they knew the guidelines and that there were no problems," Saunders said. "It's the first statewide election in four years, and we felt it was a good idea to get the word out."

Harold Sparrow , the executive director of the Black Ministerial Alliance, said he has cautioned his membership not to endorse candidates from the pulpit since an IRS review of a comment by a Boston minister, the Rev. Gregory G. Groover Sr. , pastor of the Charles Street AME Church, who in 2004 introduced Kerry as "the next president of the United States."

The Unitarian Universalist Association published guidelines for clergy during the 2004 election season but is now modifying them in response to new guidance from the IRS, and, like other denominations, expects to more aggressively publicize the rules in 2008, when political discussion is expected to intensify for the presidential campaign.

Numerous mainline Protestant denominations, including the United Church of Christ, the Presbyterian Church (USA), the United Methodist Church, and the umbrella organization Lutheran Services in America, have posted guidelines on their websites in an effort to prevent problems with the federal agency.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints this month reiterated its policy prohibiting endorsement or assistance of political candidates after a Globe story reported that operatives representing Governor Mitt Romney had met with a Mormon church elder about Romney's possible presidential campaign.

The increased attention to the role of religious organizations in politics has raised concerns that some preachers might be scared away from talking about politics.

"I am concerned that people's fears will cause them to be less forceful with their words," Keithan said. "Certainly, we don't want people to not speak out about their values."

Rabbi David Saperstein , a Reform Jewish official who hosted last week's conference call, said he, too, hopes that the discussion of an IRS crackdown will not mute the political outspokenness of clergy.

"It is clear that it is having a chilling impact, with people feeling constrained from doing things that are clearly legal, such as speaking out on the issues in a campaign or on a ballot," said Saperstein, who is the director of the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism.

"People are being erroneously confronted by lay leaders who tell them, 'Oh, the IRS doesn't allow you to speak on issues,' and rather than trying to explain why they're wrong, sometimes it's just easier to back off. I don't think that's good for the strength of our democracy, or for religious freedom."

The IRS has been outspoken this year about its concern about violations; the issue is currently highlighted on the agency's Web page, irs.gov, and the agency's commissioner, Mark W. Everson , gave a major speech on the subject in February -- in the swing state of Ohio -- in which he declared, "at the IRS we have stepped up our efforts and are vigorously enforcing the law."

"We have seen a dramatic increase in the amount of money financing politics," he said. "Are we going to let these political activities spread to our charities and churches? Now is the time to act, before it is too late."

Michael Paulson can be reached at mpaulson@globe.com.

In the News: Cardinal Sean hits a homer

Jennifer Doyle, president of the Presentation School Foundation speaks at the Oak Square announcement celebration Oct. as Boston mayor Thomas M. Menino and Cardinal Seán P. O’Malley look on. Pilot photo/ Gregory L. Tracy

It's wonderful when archdiocesan officials stop acting like petulant buttheads and start dealing with the laity on equal terms. Dropping the asking price from $2 million to $1 million allowed a citizen's group to use a parochial school building to help children. What a concept! But until Cardinal Sean acted, it was business as usual on Lake Street.

Closed Brighton school to be sold to community group

By Christine Williams

BRIGHTON — In Oak Square the DJ played U2’s “Beautiful Day,” children threw confetti and Allston-Brighton residents cheered the Oct. 19 announcement of the Archdiocese of Boston’s sale of a former school to the Presentation School Foundation (PSF).

The foundation plans to convert the former Our Lady of Presentation School, which closed in June 2005, to a community center. The archdiocese sold the building for $1 million — half the price offered by the PSF.

“It’s about our community. It’s about each one of you. For the past two years you have been here with us in the freezing cold, the sweltering heat and in the pouring rain,” said Jennifer Doyle, president of PSF. “Today there is sun.”

In planning the center, the PSF is working with the Oak Square YMCA and the Boston Public Library. The center will provide affordable pre-school, after-school programs and summer camps for local youth, educational enrichment programs in science, math, reading and writing for children as well as adult educational programs, including English as a second language and civics for immigrants.

As part of the agreement with the archdiocese, the building may not be used as an elementary school.

“This is a moment of common purpose and a moment of commitment to this community,” said Kevin M. Carragee, chair of the PSF. “I welcome Cardinal Seán O’Malley today and I highlight his role in crafting an agreement that serves this community, the city of Boston and this archdiocese.”

Cardinal O’Malley in turn thanked Boston Mayor Thomas M. Menino for supporting the initiative. Hard work and cooperation between those who worked on the agreement led to the mutually beneficial solution, he said.

“We all benefit from strong neighborhoods and communities where people can work, learn, play and grow together,” he added.

Cardinal O’Malley also acknowledged the conflict surrounding the closure of Our Lady of Presentation School.

The archdiocese was heavily criticized for abruptly closing the school June 8, 2005, two days before the last scheduled day of classes, to avoid a rumored occupation of the building.

The early closure prevented students from participating in planned graduation ceremonies and spurred protests by parents and community members on Oak Square Common. Parents maintained that while rallies had been scheduled, no sit-in had been planned.

At the time Menino said he was “outraged” by the decision to cancel the graduations and provided Faneuil Hall as an alternate site for the ceremony.

The cardinal addressed both former students and parents directly, saying, “We regret the events of the past. It is our hope and prayer that we can work together to enrich and enliven the Allston-Brighton community for many generations to come. Please know that the Church always welcomes you and values your presence.”

“The past two years have been a challenging time for the Presentation School Foundation, for the Allston-Brighton community and for the archdiocese,” he added. “In addition to the events surrounding the school closings, the clergy abuse crisis has left deep wounds in the Brighton community and we pray that this important accomplishment contributes to the foundation of trust necessary to enable the healing work for survivors, for families and for parishes.”

Menino also praised the community and the cardinal for their collaborative effort.

“When we all work together, we will achieve our goals,” he said. “This is one of the best days I could have as an elected official.”

Sunday Reflection: Blind Man's Bluff

"Thus says the LORD:
Shout with joy for Jacob,
exult at the head of the nations;
proclaim your praise and say:
The LORD has delivered his people,
the remnant of Israel.

[Bartimaeus] threw aside his cloak, sprang up, and came to Jesus.
Jesus said to him in reply, "What do you want me to do for you?"
The blind man replied to him, "Master, I want to see."
Jesus told him, "Go your way; your faith has saved you."
Immediately he received his sight
and followed him on the way.

When will we ever stop seeing these stories as something nice that happened to other people a long time ago? Our Church -- right now -- is in crisis. Churches are closing; teaching is reverting to dogmatism; the faithful are leaving in disgust; the fundamentalist hordes are closing in. Just about everywhere you look, Jesus Christ is on the run, and hatred in His name is rampant.

Parishes are devolving into a fast-food religion, with all the nutrition of MacDonald's and all the charm of a Walmart sub shop. It's all about pumping out the sacraments and calling it healthy faith life. The wacky rightwingers are trying ever so hard to meld their twisted version of Catholicim with with perverted view of American foreign policy. How many so-called traditional Catholics are against the war in Iraq because it fails (miserably) any of the tenets of the Just War policy -- one of the shining jewels of Catholic teaching? How many of these folks (who call me a Cafeteria Catholic because I am pro-birth control) support the enriching of the rich, the execution of criminals, and a literal interpretation of Scripture? It irks me that they are breaking Church Law and they are too blind, stupid, arrogant or power-hungry to see it.

Meanwhile the Church twirls down a drainhole of its own making, spinning into oblivion and irrelevancy.

Which brings me to the readings.

The Wacky Cathlics who think they represent the one true faith think they are the remnant of the Church that will save it. They could not be more wrong. Why? Because they represent only the worst of what Catholicism is. The represent hatred, insularity, nationalism, clericalism and empty ritual. They truly believe that if they were in power, the Church would have no scandals, because it would cast all the scandalous outside the walls. They aren't bright enough to appreciate the irony that in His Day, it was Jesus that was cast outside the walls and left to die. Quelle surprise that it is the Outcast who was resurrected -- not the Caiaphases and Pilates.

The Roman Catholic Church will dwindle. Of that I have no doubt. No organization that goes so far to marginalize, patronize, ignore and emasculate its membership can grow in any meaningful way. But the Lord will return a remnant. Of that Scripture assures us. Whateher it looks anything like the Catholic Church of today is irrelvant. Others can have their little Church of pageantry, patriarchal control and exclusivity. The Church of Jesus Christ -- with its call of love and fellowship to all -- will survive, even it is not called so by name.

Book Review: Dinner with a Perfect Stranger

Is this what Jesus would talk about?

It's a devout Christian's dream: the chance to have a heart-to-heart with Jesus Christ himself. What questions might one ask about oneself, life, the universe? What would Jesus think of us? What would he look like?

"Dinner with a Perfect Stranger" uses the premise of a personal encounter with Jesus and quickly makes much less of it than its divine host would suggest. The protagonist is Nick Cominsky, a fairly successful 30-year-old with a not-so-happy marriage and a job that is worrying him. One day, he gets a dinner invitation that lands him across the table at a local restaurant from a man who says he is Jesus of Nazareth.

The dinner setting is quite threadbare. The action consists of the characters picking up food and wine and moving their arms on and off the table. As such, the plot barely disguises the fact that the book is merely a chance for the writer to put his personal opinions into Jesus's mouth. Unfortunately, the Jesus that we meet spends an inordinate amount of time talking about two things: why other religions are no good and the need for all people to have a personal encounter with himself. This "Jesus" has nothing to say about justice, the poor and oppressed, talking truth to power, redemptive suffering, the eucharist or preaching the gospel. He doesn't break the bread in the gospel sense, but cuts it with a knife! He is basically a figment of the religious fantasies of a certain brand of evangelical Christian. "Jesus" confirms the existence of Hell, though he says people choose to go there. Relying on the discredited "argument from design," he dismisses evolutionary theory in a couple of sentences. The supposedly-skeptical Nick swallows every statement along with his tortellini.

Jesus does makes some nice points. His discussion of the impossibility of earning salvation is memorable. And his simplistic explanation of how sin has wrecked the moral fabric of the universe is neat, though it shares more with St. Anselm's 12th century theory of satisfaction than than of anything more recent or more subtle.

For those who feel that all religion is the same, it's a reminder that some faiths have developed understandings of the life and mission of Jesus Christ that are subtle and challenging, unlike the Jesus we meet in this very short book.

Book Review: Why be Catholic?

Why Be Catholic?: Understanding Our Experience and Tradition by Richard Rohr and Joseph Martos

Last Chance for Catholics?

The Roman Catholic Church has taken so much of a beating lately, mostly self-inflicted, that even lovers of the Church might be forgiven for wondering what might be the point of remaining Catholic.

To answer this desperate question come Richard Rohr and Joseph Martos to remind us of what it is about Catholicism that is still potent and worthy of our attention. Rohr and Martos are quite critical of the "ethnic Catholicism" that has become a hallmark of the religion. The strength of the Irish, Italians, French and others who brought their faith with them as they emigrated is that it was such a strong mark of their identity. The weak part is that this has little to do with the faith that Jesus asked us to exhibit. Similarly, the consumer Catholicism that marks recent American society no longer carries the counter-cultural message of the gospel, but becomes an extension of the national character.

Rohr and Martos highlight the special genius that is Catholicism - among other things, of its embrace (in spite of the male domination of its hierarchy) of the "feminine" spirit of forgiveness, healing and service. Of the martyrs, intellectuals, founders, humanists and eccentrics that have made up the rank and file of its holiest citizens, the saints. Rohr and Martos are hopeful that the Church can rid itself of the malign influences that have come to become synonymous with being a Roman Catholic. They are not afraid to talk of the Church's "shadow" side - its rigidity and dogmatism - while advocating a balance between its masculine and feminine impulses.

The Catholic Church they advocate is one that continually circles back to the Church of Jesus, who eschewed titles and honors and embraced the cross; who reached out to the lowly and forsaken rather than devising canonical penalties against them; who offered salvation the whole world - not only the self-appointed insiders and connected clerical caste. Whether there is still life in Mother Church is a question they would answer in the affirmative; whether the disaffected Catholic reader would agree is another question.

But if you are feeling abandoned by the Church and alienated by those currently in control, Rohr and Martos will remind you that the glories of Catholicism are in its wider view and ultimately in its balance of male and female elements. Bringing that sort of focus on the Church will likely irritate the close-minded but give some hope to those who stubbornly hold onto their place in then Church while the winds of division and exclusion rage on.

In the News: Throwing a bone to the dogs on the right

In what seems to me to be a measure of desperation (or mere stupidity) the pope is waving an olive branch in the face of the rapid pack that thinks the Tridentine Mass is the salvation of the Church. After 40 years of the Paul VI Mass (or Novus Ordo) only the most wigged out seniors or hyper pious young people want to see this petrified relic reanimated.

Here are excerpts from a CNS article with arguments from yours truly interspersed in bold throughout.

Vatican source says pope to expand use of Tridentine Mass

By John Thavis
Catholic News Service

VATICAN CITY (CNS) -- Pope Benedict XVI is preparing to expand permission to use the Tridentine Mass, the pre-Vatican II rite favored by traditionalist groups, said an informed Vatican source.

The pope is expected to issue a document "motu proprio," or on his own initiative, which will address the concerns of "various traditionalists," said the source, who asked not to be named.

"Various traditionalists" -- is this code for Mel Gibson and his Dad? Is the Vatican paying off on a bet about how gory Mel could make he Passion of Christ? "Dude!" he told the Pope, "If you blow cookies before the first hour, you have to bring back the Tridentine Mass!!! And wear stupid red shoes."

The Tridentine rite is currently available to groups of Catholics who ask and receive permission for its use from their local bishops. The old rite is celebrated in Latin and follows the Roman Missal of 1962, which was replaced in 1969 with the new Roman Missal.

In other words, you can already get the Old Mass -- you just have to ask -- or is that beyond the feeble powers of the Mass's proponents? Or (scary violins) is the goal to make it available in very parish? The plot thickens

Among those who have strongly pushed for wider use of the Tridentine rite are the followers of the late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, who was excommunicated in 1988.

"Lefebvre" is French for "the beans," of which the late Archbishop was full in spades.

Canadian Archbishop James Weisgerber of Winnipeg, Manitoba, told Catholic News Service Oct. 10 that Cardinal Dario Castrillon Hoyos, head of the Congregation for Clergy, had spoken briefly to Canadian bishops about the expected step.

"It sounded to me like it was a sort of concession somebody has made," the archbishop said.

No kidding -- this is definitely a payoff!

Archbishop Weisgerber said the new indult was apparently motivated by a desire to bring comfort to older people who may miss the old rite. But in his archdiocese, he said, the few people asking for it are "young people who never experienced it."

Bring comfort to the older people? You mean the ones who are ticked off at having the parishes closed and their kids raped and their property sold of? The ones who make up most of the membership of Voice of the Faithful and Call to Action?

And which "young people" are we talking about? The fruitcakes who take their cue from American fundamentalists and want to turn the clock back on gays, evolution and biblical scholarship?

Pope Benedict has made new efforts to reconcile with leaders of the Lefebvrite religious order, the Society of St. Pius X. In a meeting last year with the pope, Bishop Bernard Fellay, head of the society, asked for the restoration of the Tridentine rite as a sign of good will.

Bishop Fellay later told CNS that he thought the Vatican should simply declare that the Tridentine rite can be used freely because it was never really abrogated. Bishop Fellay also said wider use of the Tridentine Mass would not solve all the problems the Lefebvrites have with the Second Vatican Council.

Note to B16: this is all about overturning Vatican II and completing the ruin of the Church that VII miraculously averted.

The pope discussed potential reconciliation terms with the Lefebvrites in two meetings earlier this year, one with heads of Vatican curial offices and one with the world's cardinals. In both meetings, sources said, there were mixed views on wider use of the Tridentine Mass.

In 1984, Pope John Paul II first made it possible for groups of the faithful to worship according to the old rite under certain conditions. In 1991, the Vatican established more liberal guidelines, encouraging bishops to grant permission and retaining just one basic condition: that those seeking the old Mass form must also accept the validity of the new rite.

Suckers!!

Pope Benedict has long questioned the wisdom of the liturgical changes made after the Second Vatican Council. As Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, he was sometimes outspoken about what he considered the dismantling of the church's liturgical tradition.

B16 rides again. The man is a champion of the idiots who truly will destroy the Church with heir hatred and anti-Semitism and insularity.

"I was dismayed by the ban on the old missal, since such a development had never been seen in the history of liturgy. The impression was given that this was completely normal," he wrote in a 1997 book.

Is he for real? The council of Trent (which gave us The Tridentine Mass) itself banned all liturgical forms that were not at least 200 years old. B16: fool or liar?

In the same book, he said it was important for the faithful to understand that for liturgy and other areas, Vatican II was not a break but a "developing moment."

In short, B16 is showing himself to be as much of a punk as JPII was a giant. I don't wish his early demise, but please send us a Pope who is not such a bonehead.

And while you’re at it, how about throwing a bone to the dogs on my side of the aisle? We are part of your pretty Church too.

Sunday Reflection (OT28): Filthy lucre!!!!

Jesus looked around and said to his disciples,
"How hard it is for those who have wealth
to enter the kingdom of God!"
The disciples were amazed at his words.

It seems an odd for the diciples to be so hung up on wealth. "Holy Crap!" they appear to be saying. "If rich people can't be saved, then who can?"

If this is an accurate reflection of the cultural values they grew up with, then the freedom that Jesus offered through poverty must have appeared stunningly foolhardy -- just crazy enough to work!!! But remannts of their upbringning clung to them as Jesus blew heir minds with

It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for one who is rich to enter the kingdom of God."

The sense of existential panic on the part of the disciples is almost palpable. Rich people can't get into heaven? We are so screwed!

These sentiments sound rather quaint today, but the reality is all around us. Our national leaders seem rather self-satisfied in the success they have achieved. Rich nations boast of being "the best country in the world" when they do little to alleviate the suffering of the poor and gobble up riches that are the patrimony of all. The rich, the powerful and the beautiful are idolized and attended to because of the clothes they wear, the spouses they accumulate, the cheekbones they chisel and the cut of their hair. We may think we are going to Heaven, but we sure do wish we could be a little sleeker, more elegant, thinner and beautiful when we got there.

But the riches of heaven are not acumulated by excess and consumption, but by emptying oneself. Get rid of the stuff you are convinced defines you and gives you identity. Give it to the poor, and come with me, and I'll teach you something worth hanging onto. Rid yourself of what keeps you in the counting house and out of sight of those who could use the money.

This week, we saw the Nobel Peace prize go to a man who made micro-loans to poor women in Pakistan. The loans could be for as little as $27. But what a difference those few dollars could make. A woman whose experience was bounded by her village walls now has access to phone calls from the world, and makes money and gains influence as a "phone woman". She arranges calls between those inside the village and the entire rest of the world. Her horizons expand; her literacy is put to use; her wisdom is sought after; a community finds itself just a bit less isolated and hopeless, for the generosoty and trust of a single person.

What we do with our possessions is a test of our character. How much can we keep? How much must we store? How much could we give away? In my cellar, I have boxes and boxes of books I have not read in years. This year, I need to donate them to the library or to one of the many programs avaiabsle for those -- like the incarcerated -- who could use them.

The commercil asks, "What's in our wallet?" What's in your closet -- clothes? Old books? Shoes? Machinery? What can you get rid of and put to better use?

Sunday Relfection (OT27): Divorce

A nasty gospel today, and one that has caused more harm than good, at least as implementedf by clergy and "the faithful" in the contemporary world:

"Whoever divorces his wife and marries another
commits adultery against her;
and if she divorces her husband and marries another,
she commits adultery."

There but the grace of God, go I, might say many of us who are still married.

The modern world puts enormous pressures on its citizens. We must not merely survice, we must excel, dominating those around us. We must not only have our daily bread, we must piled possession upon possession until we have nowhere to store it all. And we must not hope only for life's little pleasures, but we must expect every day to be a holiday, every relationshop to be consistently and constantly joyful, fulfilling and satisfying.

And worst of all, we must constantly crave and reach for our individual potential, even at the expense of children, family, community and self.

As human beings, we are notoriously unhappy creatures. We are too cold or too hot, too poor or too bored. It is impossible to make us happy. We are mistaken if we expect others to provide the happiness that is not theirs to give and not in the nature of the world to provide. At least some of the unhappiness in marriage can be laid at the feet of our unrealistic expectation that happiness will comes without struggle and without the need for inner conversion.

Thne gospel today reminds us that God's way is not that of easy dispensing with burdensome relationships. It is not God's way to causally lay aside another human being when we are a little unhappy or a little bored or a little irritated. Marriage, as Jesus understands the Creator's will, is about to people growing together, changing together, striving with (both in the sense of working together and of working against)each other.

Not all marriages are entered into wisely. Individuals and their communities must help couples make wise choices, and then to support them in the inevitable struggles to come. But to the degree that we are seduced by our society's siren call to seek ever greater thrills and ever greater highs of "love," we are foolish and adulterous -- making the human body an object for our selfish pleasure and another human being into a means of our personal advancement.

To this, Jesus firmly says, "No."
____________________________________________________
Image from: http://www.blackmetal.com/cgi-bin/gold/category.cgi?category=search&item=LIFE035CD&type=store

Sunday Reflection: OT26: Who's on first?

Gotta catch up! So, a few quick hits...

Here's the meat:

At that time, John said to Jesus,
"Teacher, we saw someone driving out demons in your name,
and we tried to prevent him because he does not follow us."
Jesus replied, "Do not prevent him.
There is no one who performs a mighty deed in my name
who can at the same time speak ill of me.
For whoever is not against us is for us.

I am not a student of ancient Greek idiom, but I have to wonder whether in the ancient world, the saying in the last line was the same as it is in ours: If you are not with us, you are against us. If it is, then the your circle of allies is rather small, since the number of people you don't know (and whose alliance to you is unknown) is necessarily larger than the circle you do know. The number of people, then, that are not with you not only includes the folks who are known enmeies, but those whose feeelings to you are unknown.

But Jesus turns this around,, stating that this vast sea of unknowns should be counted for you, not against you! Sure -- you will have enemies. But rather than presuming that those neither enemies nor friends is potentially hostile, he asks us to see them as potentially friendly.

Human nature is a two-headed coin. On one hand, we know the worst that humans can do: iolence, disloyalty, fraud, theft, and so on. But on the other hand, Jesus asks us to think well of those who are strangers. He asked his disciples to depend on the kindness of those to whom they preached. The way of Jesus then is not just about trust in the goodness of the Father, but trusting in the potential goodness of all people.

Sure, you will run across those who are hateful and envious and will do you harm. But isn't it true that there are many stangers who will take you in and halp in times of need? Jesus asks us this Sunday to see the good in our neighbor. Maybe then the walls of fear toward them will begin to fall.
_________________________________________________
Image from http://www.justinsimoni.com/images/full/friend/Friend_.jpg

Sunday Reflection: Bigs shots in power

They came to Capernaum and, once inside the house,
he began to ask them,
“What were you arguing about on the way?”
But they remained silent.
They had been discussing among themselves on the way
who was the greatest.
Then he sat down, called the Twelve, and said to them,
“If anyone wishes to be first,
he shall be the last of all and the servant of all.”

Know a lot of priests like that? Know a lot of humble bishops? Know any bishops who truly care what their flock thinks? A man who would let himself be swayed by the suffering of a little one?

Vatian II was launched in an attempt to develop a Church that would hear the "signs of the times." How to reconcile this with a Church that turns a deaf ear to the suffering and alienated in its own midst? Like the sitcom character with fingers plugging his ears singing "La la la la la!!" the Church leaders don't want to hear anything but the sweet pieties echoing through their heads.

As descendents of the Apostles (or so they flatter themselves) the bishops must be the first to listen to their flocks, not the last. their place is on the front lines of suffering and pain and isolation, not barricaded behind sycophants and chancery marble and ornate vestments.

I don't want to sound like a violent revolutionary, but where will these men be when the Church crumbles around them? Are they so shortsighted to believe that they will be accorded honor and esteem even as the Church they have misled falls to ruins and irrelevance? Or will they still hold futilely onto the prestige afforded them by their dwindling, aging and ever-more-fanatical flocks? Are they destined to wake from the sleep? Or find themselves the leaders of subterranean cabals of "Catholics" who will follow any snake or lizard as long as he wears a miter and is in the Apostolic succession?

I wish I were more of a prophet. But the utter lack of leadership and humility by our leaders can only bode badly for the Church.

Yet as Christ chided the Apostles, the Church must now chide its bishops. Those of us who remain must call our leaders back into accord with the principles of Christ. Not the phony attempt to rigidify their position through neglect of the laity and the good priests who remain. But by an honest response to the love of God, the dignity of their flocks and a recognition of their frail own humanity.

In the news: B16 drops a bomb

The Islamic world (is there really such a thing) has been responding furiously to what it regards as insulting words from Pope Benedict XVI. Speaking to representatives of science at the Aula Magna of the University of Regensburg in Germany, the Pope gave a rather abstruse speech lauding Greek rational influence on Christian thought. It was one of those boring, philosophically-oriented speeches that I'm sure wowed these specialists.

Boring, except for one poorly chosen erxample.

Illustrating the difference between Catholic Christian thought and Muslim thought, the Pope read from a letter written by Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologus, describing his conversaion in 1391 with "an educated Persian":

In the seventh conversation edited by Professor Khoury, the emperor touches on the theme of the holy war. The emperor must have known that surah 2, 256 reads: "There is no compulsion in religion". According to the experts, this is one of the suras of the early period, when Mohammed was still powerless and under threat. But naturally the emperor also knew the instructions, developed later and recorded in the Qur'an, concerning holy war. Without descending to details, such as the difference in treatment accorded to those who have the "Book" and the "infidels", he addresses his interlocutor with a startling brusqueness on the central question about the relationship between religion and violence in general, saying: "Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached". The emperor, after having expressed himself so forcefully, goes on to explain in detail the reasons why spreading the faith through violence is something unreasonable. Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul. "God", he says, "is not pleased by blood - and not acting reasonably (F×< 8`(T) is contrary to God's nature. Faith is born of the soul, not the body. Whoever would lead someone to faith needs the ability to speak well and to reason properly, without violence and threats... To convince a reasonable soul, one does not need a strong arm, or weapons of any kind, or any other means of threatening a person with death...".

Though the Pope made it clear that that Emperor Manuel's words were brusque and forceful, he did not repudiate them, either here or in the rest of the speech. Muslims have reacted strongly against these words and demand an apology from the Pope. Riots and attacks on churches have followed.

On the one hand, the Muslim reaction seems overly dramatic. To take one sentence out of context and to use it to make the Pope's own point -- that violence in the name of religion is intrinsically absurd -- is silly and misguided. It plays into the hands of Muslim and leaders eager to see themselves as victims of a vastly superior Christian West.

On the other hand, the quote given above, in its entirety, has little to add to the Pope's point. His point was that Greek thought is intricately woven into the fabric of the New Testament. As such, it is not a merely accidental inculturation from the dominant culture, but says something about God himself. A God who chooses to use Greek language of rationality is a rational God who can be approached through the use of reason. The God who reveals himself as Logos -- meaning "word" and "reason" -- is a God who is not beyond the human ken, and who is not fundamantally capricious.

Frankly, some of the Pope's other remarks were far more bothersome to me. Quoting from Muslim scholar Ibn Hazn, the Pope explains:

But for Muslim teaching, God is absolutely transcendent. His will is not bound up with any of our categories, even that of rationality. Here Khoury quotes a work of the noted French Islamist R. Arnaldez, who points out that Ibn Hazn went so far as to state that God is not bound even by his own word, and that nothing would oblige him to reveal the truth to us. Were it God's will, we would even have to practise idolatry.

It's hard not to see this paragraph as a criticism of Islam and of its understanding of God. I have no idea whether the Pope is right about Ibn Naz, or whether Ibn Hazn's viewpoint is accepted by some, most or all Muslims. But the urge to criticize Islam seems at best peculiar at this time of global instability.

The Pope is the great teacher of Catholic truth. But in this case, he seemed incapbale of determinng that his words might have an impact far beyond the hallowed halls of the university. Playing on a world stage, his every word and action is scrutinized. His predecesdsor knew this and made his entire papacy a kind of media theater with himself as the principal actor. B16, without a dramatic bone in his body, seems to be blundering from one mistake to the next. I suspect that he will soon give up his attempt to be replay the papacy of the gregarious John Paul II, and retreat into sullen and confused isolation.

And perhaps not a moment too soon.

Sunday Reflection: Of Justice and Broken Clocks

There’s a place in the world for tradition: having “Happy Birthday” sung to you once a year; fireworks on the Fourth of July; praying before meals.

But there’s also a time when tradition becomes and end in itself. Evidently, there is a preoccupation among a rather large segment of humanity to continue doing things the way they have “always” been done – regardless of the detriment to themselves or their communities.

The Church needs to wrestle with change. There are some things that cannot change – our belief in Jesus Christ; the reality and mystery of the Trinity; the promise of everlasting life. There are many other items of our practice that can and must change. The problem is telling which category an item falls into.

Some are tempted to “leave the decision with God” and keep everything. But a Church that keeps everything soon finds itself at odds with itself, as old solutions conflict with new realities. Such a Church also abdicates its responsibility to be a force of discernment. It degenerates into miserliness, division and clannishness. It looks lots like the Church we have today.

Worst of all, it does not look like God, which should be its primary preoccupation.

St. Paul makes a statement in the epistle of today that makes Church changers nervous:

“All good giving and every perfect gift is from above,
coming down from the Father of lights,
with whom there is no alteration or shadow caused by change.”

To some, the idea that God is eternal an immutable (unchanging) implies that God cannot change tactics – indeed that God’s specific tactics have been known by God since the beginning. This idea has even given some people the belief that God knows ahead of time which of us will be saved and which damned, leading to a belief in predestination. Theologians seem to want to speak on both sides of this issue, claiming that God knows all (past, present and future) and yet allows free will. This strikes me as game-playing and dishonest. I’ll deal with this another time, but it seems horrible to think that a future-knowing God just plays along with us, though he knows our individual outcomes. The idea just doesn’t sit well with me.

Yet how can God be unchanging, as St. Paul insists, while doing things differently for different people?

This is where the first reading, the responsorial psalm and the Gospel can assist.

In the first reading, Moses entreats the people to obey the commandments without change. “Observe them carefully,” he says, “for thus will you give evidence of your wisdom and intelligence to the nations…” This should be red meat to the no-change faction. Better not change anything, they might think, because God doesn’t like change! But obedience implies wisdom, and wisdom isn’t about doings things without involving one’s intelligence. Hmm.

The responsorial psalm starts to put a twist to God’s unchangingness. The response is this, “One who does justice will live in the presence of the Lord.” Hmm. It’s not about blindly obeying statutes, but about doing justice. Conservatively, perhaps, it’s about obeying the statutes in a way that brings about justice. Hmmm, again. What might that mean about statutes that cannot be obeyed in a way that is just? What about a manner of obeying a statute that itself is unjust?

Ponder, ponder…

Finally, the gospel reading gets to the crux of the matter. In the reading, Jesus chastises the Pharisees and scribes who complain that he does not make his disciples wash their hands before eating, as is traditional. Jesus smacks them upside the head with this rejoinder:

“Well did Isaiah prophesy about you hypocrites, as it is written:
This people honors me with their lips,
but their hearts are far from me;
in vain do they worship me,
teaching as doctrines human precepts.
You disregard God’s commandment but cling to human tradition.”

True defilement, he continues, comes not from what a person puts into himself, but from what a person pulls out of himself – “evil thoughts, unchastity, theft, murder, adultery, greed, malice, deceit, licentiousness, envy, blasphemy, arrogance, folly.”

What does this say about those who desperately cling to human traditions – be it the Latin Mass or a favorite 1960s “folk Mass” song? It comes down to this: Are we being just by dividing the Church against itself? Does our worship style make us more open to remediating injustice or more insular and prideful? Are we being greedy, attempting to keep God’s grace to ourselves? Are we being selfish and foolish, pretending that the world does not change and the musical tastes of our youth must be inflicted on subsequent generations?

So what does this say about the immutability of God? Does God’s immutability lie in his tactics, or in his overall strategy and values? Can God’s goodness be a constant while God’s method of achieving goodness change – and change often? Can God always be just, but achieve justice sometimes through granting rewards and sometimes through putting us through trials? Can God be always holy, but sometimes allow us to wallow in sin and perversion?

I think the answer is yes. And this relativizes the importance of valuing man-made traditions over those that are God-made and God-supported. Think about that the next time you are tempted to berate your atheistic neighbor who walks for peace, to laud some traditionalist friend who dismisses regular Catholics and apostates, or to appreciate the bishop who parrots the standard Church line and thereby considers himself wise.

A Church that is wise and just needs to be constantly involved in the world, constantly evolving, constantly changing. But just as with the broken clock that is right twice a day, a Church that stagnates can be just once in a while, but only by accident.
_______________________________________________________
The image is from http://www.elegant-living.com/el_ISM-AM747.html, which shows a Mikado clock that is actually for sale.

In the News: Face to face with Veronica's Veil

Pope Benedict XVI looks kinda bummed as he views the Holy Image, purported to originate with an act of kindness on the Via Dolorosa. "Dummkopfs! This is a painting!" he seems to be thinking.

It scared the crud out of me this week when I read that the Pope might pronounce favorably on the authenticity of a very questionable relic -- the legendary veil used by Veronica to wipe the face of Christ.

ROME (Reuters) - Pope Benedict became the first pontiff on Friday [September 1, 2006] to visit "Veronica's Veil", which Christian tradition says was used to wipe the sweat from Jesus' brow on his way to crucifixion and miraculously recorded his features.

Benedict knelt in prayer before the relic also known as the "Sacred Visage", which has been guarded by Capuchin friars in a remote monastery in Manoppello in the Apennine mountains for centuries.

But the Pope stopped short of endorsing the veil, venerated since the Middle Ages, as the true face of Christ

Some of the commentary has been hilarious. The Veil bears an eerie resemblance to the Shroud of Turin, said many news reports. Some examples:

Reuters: "The fragile cloth depicts very clearly, in blood-red hues, a bearded man bearing a striking resemblance to a more famous relic, the Turin Shroud in northern Italy, which is revered by some Christians as the cloth used to wrap Christ's body."

AP and USA Today: "The veil is not as famous as the Holy Shroud of Turin, held to be Christ's burial cloth, but some experts say the images on the two cloths can be perfectly superimposed and that they were formed at the same time. Skeptics say it appears to have been painted."

TotalCatholic.com: "The loving gaze conveys inexplicable peace. Scholars say the Holy Face shows striking similarities to the face etched on the Shroud of Turin. After praying before the relic for peace in the world and other intentions, Pope Benedict told those present: "In order to enter into communion with Christ and contemplate His face, our lives must be illuminated by the truth of love which overcomes indifference, doubt, lies and egoism."

Too true, your Holiness, but I still say it's ix-nay on the eil-vay.

Striking resemblance? Perfectly superimposed? striking similarities? I've put both representations side by side above to let you decide.

To me, other than the fact that the images are of the face of a bearded male, there's no comparison. The Veil is obviously a work of art -- some sort of drawing transferred to cloth. The Shroud has its problems, but at least there's a spooky grittiness to it that makes it compelling.

All told, I'm glad that B16 kept out of this. he could have made us look really silly by accepting that this venerable-though-artistically-poor object as in any way the real thing.

The Latin Mass – Doing the Time Warp Again

While traveling through Baltimore this Sunday, I thought it would be fun to visit the Basilica of the Assumption, the first cathedral built on US soil. The church itself is undergoing renovation (it is due to be dedicated in November) so a visit was out. Meantime, Mass is celebrated in nearby St. Alphonsus Church. Looking through the Mass times, I noticed that the 11:30 mass was a Tridentine service. Since I had not attended one since the 60s (and hardly remembered it) and my kids and formerly-Lutheran wife had never experienced it, I thought it would be fun to give it a try. I even wondered whether the oft-remarked beauty of the old Mass would rub off on me and make me a believer.

It was not to be. Without giving a play-by-play, let’s just say that the Mass was weird and uninspiring.

The Church was about 1/3 full, with many women wearing lacy head veils. When we arrived 15 minutes before Mass, the recitation of the rosary was going full bore. These were no Rosary pikers either. Each decade was completed with (I think) the Fatima prayer, which goes like this:
"O my Jesus/ forgive us our sins/ save us from the fires of hell/ lead all souls to Heaven/ especially those in most need of Thy mercy. Amen.

Surely, it was clear that we were not dealing with the liberal wing of the RC Church.

Anyway, I wasn’t sure whether the start of Mass at 11:30 would interrupt the recitation, but I needn’t have fretted. The Rosary continued past the last decade, past the Salve Regina, skimming past 11:30, not ending until it had wound its way back down the stem of the Rosary, ending where it began with the Nicene Creed. Whoa! Two Creeds! These people were hard core!

The Rosary over, the Mass was allowed to begin, announced by the the ringing of a bell in the sanctuary.

I won’t bore you with details of the Mass, but here are some highlights and impressions:

1) The priest’s voice was not amplified. This torqued my wife, who was hoping at least to appreciate the Latin being spoken, which leads us to…

2) Aside from being impossible to hear, the Latin was slurred and unintelligible. One prayer, which goes “Domine, non sum dignus, ut intres sub tectum meum: sed tantum dic verbo, et sanabitur anima mea” (Lord, I am not worthy, …) is meant to be repeated three times. The priest at this Mass literally said, “Dominum, Dominum, Dominum.” So much for a) the beauty of the Latin, and b) any reverent recitation of the prayer itself.

3) The priest kept turning to the congregation to say “Dominum vobiscum” (The Lord be with you) but only the servers responded – though, truth be told, many in the congregation whispered the response (“Et cum spiritu tuo”) under their breaths. The pagans!

4) There was no music, as it was Low Mass, but there were lots of bells, which I do like. Score one for Trent.

5) The young altar servers were in a constant frenzy of movement, going back and forth across the sanctuary, genuflecting every time they passed the Church’s midline, moving the lectionary from one side to the other, lifting the back of the priest’s vestments during the Elevation, and so on.

6) The priest read the Epistle and Gospel in Latin, and only to himself!!!

7) There was a second Confiteor before the people received Communion. I understand that the Latin Mass is really set up only for the priest to receive. Communion for the people seems to have been tacked on, requiring its own rite of confession of sins.

8) After the “Ite Missa Est” (“The Mass is ended”) and blessing, another section of 3 Hail Marys, a Salve Regina and an odd prayer to Michael the Archangel were recited by those who had missalettes.

In short, this “beautiful” Latin Mass was a bust. It was boring, rushed and unbalanced. More than anything else, it is very clear that it was a jerry-rigged mess of weird parts which were badly designed and incompetently assembled. It was a junkyard wreck whose headlights were duct-taped on and whose fenders were held on with baling wire.

Truly, I was surprised. But I now have a better appreciation of why this Mass was in such need of a complete makeover. It’s too bad that some of its beautiful aspects – the smells, bells, chants and ceremony – could not have survived. But given what was gained with the Paul VI Mass – extended readings from the Old Testament, responses made by the congregation, singing at all Masses, Sign of Peace, etc. – what was lost is almost acceptable.

As my wife remarked after Mass, it’s as though a certain segment of the Catholic population enjoys living in a time warp. For these people, it’s always 1954, before “those heretics” started mucking around with the Mass. Sadly, for these people, the chief problem with the Church of old was not the way it hung onto a liturgical form, but the way that it encouraged people to never change. And change (or in theological language, conversion) is at the heart of the Christian message.

What do you suppose Jesus would say to people who refused conversion?

Sunday Reflection: Crazy words

"I am the Bread sent down from Heaven." "Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood will have eternal life."

Jesus, are you nuts?

The words of the Bread of Life discourse, as read throughout August, are really very odd. Let's see. If I eat this guy's flesh and drink his blood...is this some kind of metaphor? Some kind of sick joke? Some kind of intellectual puzzle that I need to figure out?

What does it mean to rip off a chunk of this guy's arm, or leg, or whatever, and eat it? And drink his blood? We're not supposed to drink blood, because it has the life in it that only God can give or take. Am I supposed to break the most fundamental taboos of my culture, because this guy says so? Maybe he's crazy. Sure sounds crazy.

But Jesus (and the Father) are self-emptiers, kenotics, if you will. They give until nothing is left. But there's never nothing left. The loaves and fishes replenishing themselves with food left over for all. The barrels or wine provided from jars of water. The signs of bringing healing out of nowhere. Surely, these are signs of an inexhaustible supply of provident love.

If I eat this man's flesh and drink his blood, there will be nothing left of him. Or will there? If I eat the bread and drink the wine--which he says are his body and blood--will I have consumed him completely? If I eat and there are leftovers in abundance, what does that mean?

Might it mean that I have enough to give? Might it mean that what I get is more than I need, and plenty to share? If I am nourished, can I nourish others with the overabundance? If I am strengthened, does not my strength return with enough to strengthen others>? If I am healed, does not my healing begin to heal others?

I am the Bread of Life. A little goes a long way. The God who gives so abundantly and without reservation. He gives in order to strengthen and to heal the world through us. We have more than we need to bring God's love to all the world. Should we hoard this nourishment? Or must we also empty ourselves, trusting that the larder will always be replenished?

Share in the eternal moment which is not constrained by the laws of entropy or of supply and demand. In which the pantry is filled by being emptied. In which the self is saved by being poured out. In which the soul lives by giving itself to service and suffering and death.

PopeWatch: B16 softening on divorce?

With B16 following so closely (slavishly, I might add) in JP2's footsteps, one might not have expected to see much change in the way things are done in the RC kingdom. But perhaps former Cardinal Ratzinger has a heart after all. I quote an article from American Chronicle, to let you make up your own mind.

Is B16 contemplating big changes? Or is just going to nibble around the edges of a scandalous separation of Catholics from the Eucharist that was instituted to sustain them, espcially in the wake of a failed marriage?

Pope Benedict's approach to divorce
Roland Flamini
August 16, 2005
Can things be looking up for divorced Catholics who re-marry? The late Pope John Paul II's approach to the problem was tough and uncompromising. Catholics who entered into a civil marriage following a divorce were in a state of "moral disorder, opposed to the precise requirements deriving from the faith," the pope declared in 1997. As such they were barred from taking Holy Communion.

But recent remarks on the issue by Pope Benedict XVI seemed like a small, flickering candle of hope that the old hard line on this problem was softening.

...In Italy's Aosta Valley, where he was vacationing last month, the pope discussed divorce at a closed-doors meeting with 140 local priests. Asked about administering to divorced Catholics who had re-married, the pope delivered one of those complex replies that have become familiar. Where Pope John Paul seemed to regard their situation with severity, Benedict XVI's response reflected compassion.

"I would say," -- he began, citing a specific situation -- "that a particularly painful situation is that of those who were married in the church, but were not really believers and did so just for tradition, and then finding themselves in a new, non-valid marriage, convert and find the faith only to feel excluded from the sacrament." He said he had thought, based on discussions in the past with several bishops, that the original church marriage could be considered invalid because the couple marrying had not believed it in the sacrament in the first place. But he added, "From the discussions we had I understood that the problem was very difficult, but given the suffering of these individuals, it needs to be studied further."

He said divorced Catholics who had re-married should go to Mass (something not explicitly mentioned by his predecessor) even if they could not receive communion. The Eucharist (Mass) without receiving communion is incomplete, "an essential element is missing," the pope said, "but it is not nothing."

He said the situation in the Orthodox Church was sometimes mentioned as a model because divorced members of the Orthodox Christian denomination were allowed to re-marry and to receive communion. "But only the first marriage was sacramental," he told the gathering. "Even (the Orthodox Church) acknowledges that subsequent marriages are not Sacraments, but marriages of a lesser kind." Such marriages were allowed at the discretion of the clergy to prevent a couple from continuing to live outside wedlock.

What gives his remarks extra significance is the fact that improving relations with the Orthodox Church is one issue where Pope Benedict XVI has picked up where his predecessor left off. The conversation with the clergy was also typical of his emerging personal style -- learned, complex, and at the same time forthright.

In the News: I let no woman teach

From CNN:

WATERTOWN, New York (AP) -- The minister of a church that dismissed a female Sunday School teacher after adopting what it called a literal interpretation of the Bible says a woman can perform any job -- outside of the church.

The First Baptist Church dismissed Mary Lambert on August 9 with a letter explaining that the church had adopted an interpretation that prohibits women from teaching men. She had taught there for 54 years.

The good pastor based his decision on 1 Timothy 12, which reads, in part:

I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man. She must be quiet.

It's getting really irritating to have pastors quote this epistle out of context and only in part. Just a couple of verses before that one is this, from 1 Timothy 9:

...women should adorn themselves with proper conduct, with modesty and self-control, not with braided hairstyles and gold ornaments, or pearls, or expensive clothes...

But when's the last time you heard a pastor rant about beauty parlors, jewelry and nice clothes? Watch a televangelist lately? See many ladies in jeans and sweatshirts?

If pastors can ignore one but of Paul's advice, why not the other? Seems to me that if they are being faithful to the scriptures, they could at least be consistent. But no. It's easier to enforce scripture that backs up one's own prejudices than to apply it evenly and tick people off.

It's the same problem with Leviticus. No one wants to enforce death for adulterers (Leviticus 20:10), but everyone wants to enforce death for gays (Leviticus 18:22).

Tell you what. As soon as we start executing those who sleep with others' spouses, we can start killing homosexuals.

Sunday Reflection: Immaturity

I'll focus on the first reading today, since it features a character, Wisdom, who is unusual in several respects. Firstly, Wisdom (Sophia in Greek) is a female character from the Old Testament. That makes her interesting enough. Also she is an allegorical one. Thirdly, she is closely related to the principle which John writes about in his Gospel -- the Word made Flesh. In fact, this closeness of identification has promted Christian theologians and scholars to relate, if not equate the two.

In the first reading from Proverbs, we see Wisdom inviting the simple into her abode:

Wisdom has built her house,
she has set up her seven columns;
she has dressed her meat, mixed her wine,
yes, she has spread her table.
She has sent out her maidens; she calls
from the heights out over the city:
“Let whoever is simple turn in here;
To the one who lacks understanding, she says,
Come, eat of my food,
and drink of the wine I have mixed!
Forsake foolishness that you may live;
advance in the way of understanding.”

This hearty invitation echoes the ways of another woman of Proverbs -- the prostitute (see Proverbs 6) who also entices the simple, but into sin, and nothing more:

And I saw among the simple ones, I observed among the young men, a youth with no sense,
Going along the street near the corner, then walking in the direction of her house--
In the twilight, at dusk of day, at the time of the dark of night.

It's difficult not to contrast these two women and the worldviews they represent. Both entice the simple, but only one feeds them. Both invite, but only one fulfills.

What role does the prostitute play? Yes, she is the one who tempts the weak to indulge in sins of the flesh. But Wisdom’s does not condemn the simple for being sinful. She invites them to put away immaturity. What about the way of the prostitute is immature? Viewed literally, the prostitute invites men to share in pleasure without the concomitant responsibility. Men can enjoy her body without having to do the hard work of establishing a relationship with her. Their pleasure comes at little cost to themselves. They are encouraged not to think of the prostitute as a person, but as a pleasing collection of body parts. She can feign interest in them and claim to be impressed by their virility, but there’s nothing real there. If they are really dull, being with the prostitute does not require them to face their dullness. If they are unattractive, being with her allows them to pretend to be handsome. The men who frequent the prostitute play a game that allows them to hide from themselves. They choose to keep in the dark about their shortcomings.

No wonder she works “in the twilight, in the disk of the day”!

Wisdom, on the other hand is all light. Her house is prominent and her call is public. There is nothing hidden about her. In contrast to the prostitute who keeps the immature from growing, Wisdom seeks to change the simple into the wise. She seeks to advance them in the way of understanding. She seeks to move her charges from the way they have lived into new and more fruitful ways.

Unlike the prostitute, who offers the same weary sensation time after time, Wisdom calls us to a banquet that is ever varying and ever changing. The feast she offers is one that takes in experiences far beyond the familiar and the commonplace. She offers to introduce us to the whole world, made also in God's image, populated by his people, at a table that stretches from east to west and from north to south. The experience of all people is her menu. And the wisdom of the world is at her disposal. Come, taste the wonder that lives in the lives of your neighbors. Learn of their ways, dance their dance and share in the banquet of their lives. Take a step outside of yourself, not to indulge in immature pleasures that last but a moment, but to deepen your love and appreciation of those you hardly know.

Do we find ourselves in the immature rut of doing that is repetitive, dull or leaves us empty? Or do we find ourselves in an equally foolish habit of following every new fad and forbidden act? Either way, we have become customers of the prostitute’s lure toward the merely carnal.

The way of Wisdom is of a banquet that fulfills. It is not necessarily a popular eatery or a cheap one either. But it changes us, stretches us and brings us new ways to see ourselves, our neighbors and our Maker. Wisdom calls from the parapets in the full light of day. Will we heed her call, or prefer the slinking shadows that lead us toward the futile repetition of past pleasures. Will we find ourselves advancing in the ways of Wisdom, or as Edna St. Vincent Millay wrote, will we find that “Life isn't one damn thing after another. It's the same damn thing again and again.”

Sunday Reflection: Bread of Life

August has rolled around again, and with it comes readings about bread. Today, we are treated to Elijah in the wilderness, contrasted with the "Bread of Life" discourse from John's gospel.

Elijah the prophet is on the run from Queen Jezebel. The story comes quick on the heels of Elijah's great success on Mount Carmel, in which he bested 450 prophets of Baal by being the one on whose sacrifice fire rained from heaven. Not one to leave any job unfinished, Elijah ordered that his opponents be caught and executed. Now, Jezebel swears to do to Elijah what he did to her prophets. Elijah flees to the desert, leaving his servants partway, and continuing alone. His hysteria and panic have caught up to him. He is alone in a place where survival is an iffy prospect in the best of times. Now that he is being hunted by the entire army, he is about to give up, and prays for God -- the author of his life -- to take that life away.

Rather than to grant his wish, God sends Elijah a messenger, or angel, in a dream. The angel twice rouses the prophet and feeds him bread and water -- enough to sustain Elijah on a long journey to Mount Horeb, where he will encounter God. But that's a reading for another Sunday.

Elijah has been no shrinking violet. He has confronted the powerful, and is paying the price for telling them the truth. Though exhausted, hungry and despairing, he receives the strength he needs to take him to the next step in his journey.

In the gospel reading, John uses a favorite literary device that puts a discourse into Jesus mouth that Our Lord probably never uttered, but which contains deep truths about him and his identity. Jesus tells us that he is the bread that came down from heaven, and that those who eat this bread will never die. The manna or bread that nourished the Israelites after their escape from Egypt was meant only to save their bodies, and it did its work for the forty years that Israel wandered the desert. But the bread that Jesus gives is his own flesh, whose effect is not the survival of the body, but eternal life.

The parallels with the Elijah story are many, and they are quite beautiful. Elijah is strengthened in adversity by bread that comes from God's own messenger. Sustained by this bread, he is enabled to travel to his destination in Horeb, where God awaits to reveal himself. Jesus gives us his flesh as bread, nourishing us on our own journey, whose destination is also an encounter with God.

We Catholics tend to simultaneously overvalue and undervalue the Eucharist, which is the continuation of John’s insight into the nature of the bread given by Christ. We overvalue it by fetishizing it, becoming paranoid about its precise ingredients and valuing the ability of the communion host to break without creating particles. But we also undervalue it, taking for granted its power in our lives to transform us and to nourish us on our way. How many of us choose not to receive on Sunday? Or to take daily Mass as a standard and unremarkable facet of our day? Are we, as Saint Paul asks, eating worthily of the bread, becoming cognizant of the gift that Christ gives us? Or do we consider the Eucharist as a spiritual gas station, making the reception oft he gift of the Eucharist into little more than a business transaction?

Christ, who sees deeply into our hearts, knows the limitations of our worship. Always ready to forgive and to teach, he continues to accompany us on our journey of faith. May we return the favor of his gift by pondering it closely in our hearts, by asking for this nourishing bread to transform our hearts and make us more capable to reach our heavenly destination. May this bread that we eat, in Saint Paul's words, heal the bitterness, fury, anger, shouting, reviling and malice from our hearts, revealing the compassion and forgiveness that our in our grasp, and in the model of our Savior. Amen.

Explainer: Sex and the OTUB model

OK. I'm not going to be cute or flu off on tangents. In this entry, I am going to give you the key to Catholic teaching about sexuality. The key is in what I called the "OTUB" model of sexuality. It is vital that every Catholic know about the model. Why? Because it explains the sometimes bizarre teachings about sexuality that hit the news every once in awhile. And the model's elegance explains why it's so hard for the Church to give it up.

Some questions.

Why is the Church against using condoms to fight AIDS? OTUB.

Why is the Church against gay marriage? OTUB.

Why does the Church oppose birth control methods (like tubal ligation and vasectomy) that do not involve destroying a fertilized egg? OTUB.

So what is OTUB?

OTUB will not be found in any catechism or in any single church document. It can be inferred, however, by viewing the trajectory of teachings that emerge from the Church. Glimpses of OTUB can be found in various church documents, such as John Paul II's Evangelium Vitae. By reading enough church documents, it is possible to detect all the pieces of the puzzle.

It then requires only some wise and discerning invididuals (by which we mean ourselves, naturally) to put them together. Thank you. Thank you very much.

OTUB, the basic model from which all Church teaching on sexuality emerges, boils down to this:
1) The only valid form of sex is penis-vagina sex
2) All sexual acts must take place in the context of marriage
3) All sexual acts must at least be open to the possibility of procreation

Got it? So where does OTUB come from? Well, except for one, the letters themselves do not stand for anything. They are visually representations of the the components of sexuality described above.

The "O" stands for the marital context within which sex takes place.
The "T" and the "U" represent the union of the male and female sexual organs. Sorry, ick!
The "B" (for "baby") represent the openness of the sex act to children.

As I said, everything you need to know about the Catholic approach to sex is in this model. Shall I demonstrate?

Homosexual sex: violates the penis/vagina rule. It also violates the procreation rule, since homosexual sex cannot produce children.

Oral and anal sex: violates the penis/vagina rule -- even for married people! They also violate the procreative rule, for obvious reasons.

Hormonal birth control, tubal ligation and vasectomy: all violate the "open to procreation rule -- again, even for married people!!!

In vitro fertilization: aside from the issue of the destruction of embryos, there is another problem. Since fertilization occurs outside the body, this violates the penis/vagina rule.

By applying the OTUB model, can you figure out why surrogate motherhood and masturbation might be problems?

So that's the OTUB model. The next time you hear a bishop or pope or cardinal talk about sex, see if I'm right. Does the model fit? Does it help to explain the goobledygook you are hearing? Does it now make sense that bishops discuss the emotional, social or physical costs of sexuality only as secondary considerations?

The OTUB model is both a problem and an opportunity for Catholics. A problem because it embroils the Church unnecessarily in ridiculous arguments about sexuality -- arguments that distract it from more pressing concerns. It explains why conservative Catholics rank masturbation as high on the list of sexual sins as abortion and adultery. How can one, maintain some ultra-conervatives, validly differentiate between violations of OTUB? Are not all violations equally heinous?

So where's the opportunity? It lies in the fact that once they know about OTUB, Catholics will realize the source of their Church's problems with sexuality. It's not, as many think, that the Church has a problem with sex. This is the big-family Church, remember? It's that the Church has made OTUB its Golden Calf and dances around it at every opportunity. What the Church needs is another model -- one that recognizes that love is the fundmental determinant of Christian life, that love sacred in all of its forms, that stable relationships are integral to the growth of the partners and the raising of children, that the decision to procreate belongs (to some degree) to the parents, and that the planet is in danger of overconsuming its God-created resources.

After all, even God stopped creating after six days.

Sunday Reflection: My Son, the Beloved

This Sunday's readings focus on the Transfiguration. the gospel reading gives us Mark's version of the story, while the second reading, from 2Peter, makes Peter's claim to have been among "eyewitnesses of his majesty" when they accompanied him on the "holy mountain." The first reading ties in as well, giving us a picture of a fire-enthroned Ancient One giving to "one like a Son of man" "dominion, glory, and kingship" over "all peoples, nations, and languages."

The clarity of a message of the royal majesty of Christ is not easy to miss. But more than mere glory, Christ is given the title of "Beloved Son" with whom the Father is "well pleased." The accustomed paternal air of sanction is rather dull to Christian ears, but is unmistakable. God is pleased with Jesus. But why?

The last lines of the gospel reading tell us. "As they were coming down from the mountain, he charged them not to relate what they had seen to anyone, except when the Son of Man had risen from the dead." The majesty of the moment would only make sense in context of the Resurrection. And that would be obtained only be enduring the Cross.

Most poignantly, we are told of a manner of torment that was worse than anything Rome could device: "So they kept the matter to themselves, questioning what rising from the dead meant." Having been granted access to the divine dimension of glory, the three witnesses to the Transfiguration were given a key that could open no door that they knew of, but that would be held onto, almost forgotten, through suffering, defeat, humiliation and despair. It was a key that would one unlock mysteries as yet unfathomable. For only after the Resurrection -- when "rising from the dead" meant something: the heavenly manifestation of the Beloved Son, acclaimed from the highest reaches of Heaven -- would make perfect sense.

We walk in darkness, doubt and fear in so many ways. We sometimes walk alone, misunderstood and lonely. We ache for those nearest to us to reach out, to share our troubles, just to listen. Often, we are disappointed in what our families, friends and communities can do for us. We make the lonely walk through illness and death with no one to provide even a touch or a word that will soothe our anguished souls.

The mystery of the Transfiguration shows that Christ, too, walked the lonely road of despair. Even after a revelation of his divinity, he faced the daunting task of continued obedience to the Father, even unto the Cross. Our lives our troubled sometimes and we feel alone. May we, also beloved sons and daughters of the Father, learn to walk the path of Christ, encouraged that in spite of the sorrows of the present, we will rise to new life. Amen
_____________________________________________________________________________
Image from http://www.allposters.com/-sp/Father-and-Son-Posters_i411005_.htm

Book Review: By Their Works

You would be forgiven if this book's subtitle - Profiles of Men of Faith Who Made a Difference - made you think of William Lloyd Garrison, Martin Luther King, Jr. or Mohandas Gandhi. But this book is only about the Roman Catholic men of the Knights of Columbus, or "KofC." Covering the period from the organization's founding in 1882 to the present day, the book profiles 60 men whom the author feels exemplifies the Knights' mission of charity and patriotic values. The reader might be surprised to learn that notables such as Babe Ruth, John Kennedy and Vince Lombardi were in the KofC.

Unfortunately, the short profiles are superficial and uneven. JFK and the Babe might have been Knights, but it's hard to see their membership reflected in their work. Side by side with martyrs and presidents are stories of quite modest men. The profiled men earned their place in the book by selling lots of KofC life insurance, having a military job of calling the families of soldiers wounded in Afghanistan and Iraq, or by dying in the World Trade Center collapse on 9/11. Each man, great and small, is shaped into a paragon of virtue and piety.

What made the book disappointing is that the backbone of the KofC is made up of humble and ordinary men who make relatively modest contributions to their communities. The book should have ignored the chancery, the Oval Office and the history books to focused on yard sales and Tootsie Roll drives. Telling the stories of these fallible flesh-and-blood men, as opposed to the plastic variety, would have been a better testament to the value of this organization.

In the News: Mad Mel strikes again

Mel Gibson really put his foot in it this week. After being pulled over for driving drunk, he inexplicably let fly with an anti-Semitic torrent of abuse.

Accoding to CNN,

Gibson, the director of 1995's Oscar-winning "Braveheart" and 2004's controversial "The Passion of the Christ," was picked up by Los Angeles County sheriff's deputies early Friday with a blood-alcohol level of 0.12 percent, the department said. California's legal limit is 0.08.

During his arrest, Gibson asked the arresting deputy whether he was a Jew and said, "F---ing Jews. The Jews are responsible for all the wars in the world," according to a sheriff's report obtained by the entertainment Web site TMZ.com.

Bad enough. But by way of apology, Mel offered this baffler:

"I am in the process of understanding where those vicious words came from during that drunken display, and I am asking the Jewish community, whom I have personally offended, to help me on my journey through recovery," the statement continued.

Ah. So Mel seems baffled by the source of his anti-Semitic remarks. Where, oh where, did these vile words come from? Well, Mel, words spoken in anger (especially words unprovoked by the circumstances) are usually signs of highly-charged emotions just beneath the surface. An event unleashes a verbal expression that pretty accurately reflects what the person is thinking or feeling. Humor works the same way. When people "joke" with you about the same issue, there's usually a concealed message included, like a brick inside a cushion.

So, Mel, where could your ridiculous tirade have originated? Could it be from your membership in a right-wing fringe version of the Catholic Church that rejects every Church teaching since Vatican II? That would including the landmark 1965 document -- Nostra Aetate -- that put an end to official Church persecution of Jews. Could it be that your father denies the Holocaust, and you have refused to refute his stand?

Or is your dentist named Goldstein? What?

Mel's anti-Semitism is a sad by-product of his hateful community -- both family and Church. Neither based in reality or experience, it informs his artistic work (The Passion of the Christ in particular), his general thick-headedness and his drunken tirades. It's unfortunate that his association with a breakaway sect of the Roman Catholic Church impugns the rest of us. Sadly most people think he's a hyper-pious RC, when he's becoming a plain old nutjob.

Mel needs a shrink and a catechist, and the order doesn't matter.