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?