Ecclésia Supplet[Comments? Please e-mail tridnews@stjosaphatchurch.org. Previous columns are available at www.stjosaphatchurch.org. This edition of Tridentine Community News, with minor editions, is from the St. Josaphat bulletin insert for May 31, 2009. Hat tip to A.B.]In an earlier column, we discussed the difference between validity of a Sacrament and licitness. To be valid, a Sacrament must have proper matter (in this case, unleavened bread) and form (the words of consecration as specified by the Church). Using the improper words for the Consecration of the Mass renders the Sacrament of the Eucharist invalid, for example.
A Sacrament is licit when it is celebrated under the structures that Holy Mother Church defines. Priests of the SSPX, for example, celebrate valid but illicit Masses, because they are doing so without the approval of the competent authority, who in most cases is the local diocesan bishop.
Jurisdiction is a correlated concept: Certain actions of a priest are only valid if the priest has jurisdiction to perform that activity. Notably, a priest may only hear Confessions in a diocese where he has been given faculties, or permission, to do so. Visiting priests are supposed to request faculties from the diocesan offices if they wish to hear Confessions in that diocese. The form and matter of the Sacrament can be proper, but the Sacrament could still be invalid. The lack of jurisdiction is a case where being illicit also makes a Sacrament invalid.
By way of analogy, a policeman from Detroit would not be able to pull over and ticket a speeder in Windsor. While it might seem a sensible thing for him to do, he does not have the authority to perform that action. A properly filled-out City of Detroit ticket form carries no weight in Windsor.
After our recent series of columns on De Deféctibus, the section of the Extraordinary Form Roman Missal that describes potential flaws in the celebration of Holy Mass and what should be done when they occur, some questions were raised. Shouldn’t the Church be more charitable in assuring validity of the Sacraments? Do the faithful really need to be worried about whether they are actually receiving the Sacraments they think they are getting? Specifically, does the notion of Ecclésia Supplet apply?
Ecclésia Supplet (“The Church Supplies”) is a principle of Canon Law which means that in cases of absent or questionable jurisdiction, Holy Mother Church supplies the jurisdiction in cases of need. This is a charitable concept with many practical advantages, especially in our era when there are insufficient priests to minister to the faithful. Consider this example: A priest is leading a pilgrimage to a rural part of Italy. One of the members of the tour group wishes to make a Confession. None of the local priests speaks English. It is reasonable to think that the pilgrimage-leading priest could validly hear such a Confession because of need. The Church needs order, yes, but She does not want such order to come at the expense of the salvation of souls in cases of need.
An important distinction is made by Sacred Heart Seminary Professor of Canon Law Dr. Ed Peters in his February 22, 2007 posting on www.canonlaw.info: The principle of Ecclésia Supplet is restricted to matters of jurisdiction. It does not apply to matters of Sacramental Form.
Deus Próvidet
Dr. Peters explains that a different but allied concept, Deus Próvidet (“God provides”), applies in certain circumstances. As an example, if a celebrant accidentally neglects to place a ciborium on the corporal prior to praying the words of consecration, it is only logical to believe that God makes up for this unintentional failure and still makes the consecration valid. At the same time, Peters argues that God expects something of his ministers and of the faithful. A priest cannot habitually do, or fail to do, something that results in a Sacrament being invalid.
Likewise, members of the faithful who are aware that a priest did something invalid, such as failing to speak the specified words of absolution in Confession, must act based upon this knowledge. One must either ask the priest to say the approved words of absolution, or one must go to another confessor and reconfess one’s sins. As mature Catholics, we are expected to be able to distinguish between a one-time mistake and a bad habit. As long as priests are available, we do have a right to receive Sacraments that are valid.
As with so much of our Catholic Faith, the bigger picture concept is logical and reasonable: Was it an accident? Was the recipient of the Sacrament unaware of the error? Then God understands. But God expects more of those to whom He has given greater knowledge. Those individuals need to take responsibility for celebrating and receiving valid Sacraments. And this is where the beauty of De Deféctibus lies: It is an instructional piece whose goal is simply to form the priest better, so that the faithful have less likelihood of receiving an invalidly consecrated Eucharist.
Sunday, May 31, 2009
Valid sacraments & canon law: with a little help from Dr. Ed Peters
Tridentine Community News (May 31, 2009):
Preparing for martyrdom
Guillotined by the Nazis on August 9, 1943, Franz Jägerstätter was beatified by Pope Benedict XVI on October 26, 2007. Denver Archbishop Charles J. Chaput uses the story of Jägerstätter as the basis for his article, "New Life in Christ: What it Looks Like, What it Demands" (First Things, May 11, 2009). My purpose here is not to relate the story of Blessed Franz Jägerstätter, which you owe to yourself to read sometime if you don't know it. All I want is to offer you a few excerpts I liked from Abp. Chaput's article:
I want to quote something Franz wrote in a letter to his godson. He wrote: “I can say from my own experience how painful life often is when one lives as a halfway Christian. It is more like vegetating than living.” Believers today are relentlessly tempted to accept a halfway Christianity, to lead a “double life” -- to be one person when we’re in church or at prayer and somebody different when we’re with our friends or family, or at work, or when we talk about politics.[Hat tip to E.E.]
... Jesus didn’t come down from heaven to tell us to go to church on Sunday. He didn’t die on the cross and rise from the dead so that we’d pray more at home and be a little kinder to our next-door neighbors. The one thing even non-believers can see is that the Gospels aren’t compromise documents. Jesus wants all of us. And not just on Sundays. He wants us to love God with all our heart, all our soul, all our strength, and all our mind. He wants us to love our neighbor as ourselves. In other words, with a love that’s total.
... Love the Church; love her as your mother and teacher. Help to build her up, to purify her life and work. We all get angry when we see human weakness and sin in the Church. But we need to remember always that the Church is much, much more than the sum of her human parts.
... And this is crucial: Know and revere what the Church teaches. What the Church teaches is what Christ wants you and everyone else to know¯for our own good and for our salvation. Know what the Church teaches so you can live those teachings and share those teachings with others.
The leaders of today’s secularized societies like to fancy themselves as true humanists and humanitarians. But these same societies justify killing millions of babies in the womb and dismembering embryos in the laboratory. We dispatch the handicapped and the elderly and call it “death with dignity.” ...
Only the Church stands up against these inhuman trends in our societies. It’s your mission, as lay men and lay women, to ensure that Christ’s teaching is preached and explained and defended at every level of our society¯in politics, in the workplace, in the culture.
... Blessed Franz wrote beautiful letters to his wife from prison. In one of them he talked about the great martyrs of the Church. He wrote: “If we hope to reach our goal some day, then we, too, must become heroes of the faith...."
Mr. Obama: our nation's second Stephen Douglas
"What emerges from this episode, so effectively told in The Audacity of Hope, is that its author really, really does not like being compared to Stephen Douglas on the issue of abortion, even if the analogy is entirely apt—once it is granted that abortion is first and above all a civil-rights issue," writes Edward T. Oakes, S.J., in "Can Barack Obama Be Converted on Abortion?" (First Things, May 5, 2009). "And something about that civil rights argument gnaws at Mr. Obama, as he describes here:
[Hat tip to E.E.]
What they [my supporters] didn’t understand was that I could not help but take Mr. [Alan] Keyes seriously. For he claimed to speak for my religion—and although I might not like what came out of his mouth, I had to admit that some of his views had many adherents within the Christian church.Is this a guilty conscience? If so, does Mr. Obama have one still? God knows. One thing for sure: even if Alan Keyes had zero chance of defeating Obama in the Illinois senate race of 2004, he totally succeeded in getting under his skin. We've also learned something important here: if any argument stands a chance of getting under the skin of Obama and those in his constituency, we now know what kind of argument that is.
... Alan Keyes presented the essential vision of the religious right in this country, shorn of all caveat, compromise, or apology. Within its own terms, it was entirely coherent, and provided Mr. Keyes with the certainty and fluency of an Old Testament prophet. And while I found it simple enough to dispose of his constitutional and policy arguments, his readings of Scripture put me on the defensive. Mr. Obama says he’s a Christian, Mr. Keyes would say, and yet he supports a lifestyle that the Bible calls an abomination. Mr. Obama says he’s a Christian, but he supports the destruction of innocent and sacred life. What could I say? That a literal reading of the Bible was folly? That Mr. Keyes, a Roman Catholic, should disregard the pope’s teachings? Unwilling to go there, I answered with the usual liberal response in such debates—that we live in a pluralistic society, that I can’t impose my religious views on another, that I was running to be a US senator from Illinois and not the minister of Illinois. But even as I answered, I was mindful of Mr. Keyes’s implicit accusation—that I remained steeped in doubt, that my faith was adulterated, that I was not a true Christian.
[Hat tip to E.E.]
Saturday, May 30, 2009
Great debate (errr ... 'discussion'): R. George v. D. Kmiec
A very interesting debate (termed a "discussion") between Robbie George and Doug Kmiec was hosted by Catholic University of America on May 29, on the topic: "The Obama Administration and the Sanctity of Human Life: Is there a common ground on life issue? What is the right response by ‘Pro-Life’ Citizens?"
This is a very interesting video through C-SPAN (length 1:20).
Of related interest
This is a very interesting video through C-SPAN (length 1:20).
Of related interest
- George Neumayr, "Ex Corde Ecclesiae and the Notre Dame affair" (Catholic World Report, May 2009): "Will they let this charade continue? Or will they finally enforce Ex Corde, not just at Notre Dame but at all Catholic colleges? Divided against themselves they cannot stand."
L'Osservatore Romano: a diagnosis
Following up on "L'Osservatore Romano Editor: 'Obama not pro-abortion" (Musings, May 22), an excellent diagnosis of the malady by Michael Novak, "All the Confusion Fit to Print" (NRO, May 26, 2009).
[Hat tip to T.K.]
[Hat tip to T.K.]
Friday, May 29, 2009
Point-counter-point on Christopher West: David Schindler v. Janet Smith
- David L. Schindler, "Christopher West's Theology of the Body" (Headline Bistro, May 2009)
- "Dr. Janet Smith calls Schindler attack 'puzzling' (Defense of Christopher West)” (California Catholic Daily, May 29, 2009)
Thursday, May 28, 2009
Sex and Catholic religious culture: Is there a problem?
Peter Kreeft once noted that our post-modern culture, far from being a-moral, is in fact highly moralistic about everything from smoking and sexism, to recycling and politically correct language. Our culture, he said, is not decidedly a-moral about anything, he said, except for "pelvic issues" -- that is, anything related in some way to sex.
Hard on the heels of the recent flap over Christopher West's ABC Nightline discussion of John Paul II's theology of the body as representing the "sexiest" religion in the world ("A theology of the body too far?" Musings, May 11, 2009) came news of "Ex-Archbishop Weakland coming out of the closet" (Musings, May 17, 2009). Given this recrudescence of pelvic issues in recent news, perhaps the theme warrants a more deliberate revisiting.
This, of course, is a huge subject, just as huge as the pelvic obsessions of our culture, which have led to the proliferation of pornography, legalized contraception (Griswold v. Connecticut, 1965), widespread recreational sex, a bull market in sex-enhancement drugs, prostitution, sex toys, sex bars, sex slaves, rampant adultery, runaway divorce, legalized abortion (Roe vs. Wade, 1973), broken homes, single-parent families, skyrocketing numbers of welfare moms, child abuse, the mainstreaming of homosexualism, same-sex 'marriage' and sodomy, and the greater part of those social and moral toxins that afflict us in our fatally diseased Culture of Death.
The issue of sex has been addressed thoroughly in a positive light by the late John Paul II in his Theology of the Body -- now famous, thanks to the publicity of Christopher West. Yet the issue continues to present itself as a problem for the Church in multiple ways -- not only through quotidian pastoral questions about personal sexual sins, contraception, autoeroticism, homosexual acts, pre-marital cohabitation, divorce, annulments, remarriage, women's ordination, and the like; but through questions raised by the legacy of the huge sex-abuse scandal involving the priestly molestation of (mostly) young boys publicized by the Boston Globe in 2002, as well as proximate questions raised by the continuing debate over priestly celibacy, recently fueled by comments by former New York Archbishop Cardinal Edward M. Egan (March 12, 2009) and his successor, Archbishop Timothy Dolan (May 16, 2009).
This last issue of priestly celibacy is often perceived, it seems, whether rightly or wrongly, as a point of vulnerability in the current discipline of the Church, as well as in Catholic tradition, and a means by which her general attitude to sex and gender is frequently called into question.
Ordinarily I confess that I find it difficult to take seriously criticisms of the Catholic tradition of priestly celibacy, since I think the aboriginal antiquity and legitimacy of the tradition has been amply demonstrated -- for example, by Ignace de la Potterie, "The biblical foundation of priestly celibacy" (Vatican website), or by Christian Cochini's Apostolic Origins of Priestly Celibacy
(Ignatius, 1990). Moreover, no arguments I have so far encountered against the ongoing practice of priestly celibacy have struck me as the least bit convincing, and I can think of ample reason for supporting it -- not only St. Paul's counsel that an unmarried man retains his freedom to give his undivided attention to things of the Lord, while the married man is inevitably filled with worldly cares about how to care for his family and wife (1 Corinthians 7:32-33) -- although that may be reason enough: I have often wondered how Blessed Fr. Damien's priestly vocation among the lepers of Molokai might have fared had he been married and had wife and family to go home to each night. I have also wondered how St. Francis Xavier's vocation as a missionary in Asia would have fared had he not been able to win the confidence of the indigenous peoples by demonstrating that he and his fellow Jesuits and Franciscans were sworn to chastity, poverty, and obedience, and were thus no threat to their women, their wealth, or their government. Yet there are also other reasons, too, such as the stark counter-cultural witness of a priest's consecrated celibacy to the deeper spiritual reality of the Church's nuptial fidelity to Christ within a culture of narcissistic sexual self-indulgence.
Even so, various tangentially-related issues often arise alongside the question of priestly celibacy that may warrant further consideration. A challenging example of how this can occur is found in a recent post by my friend, Gregory Krehbiel.[1]
The post is entitled "There is something deeply troubling about the Catholic Church’s problem with sex" (Crowhill Weblog, May 15, 2009). What he says in his post is troubling indeed. On one level, it can be read as sounding an alarm about certain (mostly recent) trends he claims to detect in Catholic and religious culture -- or, at the very least, in broadly-held views of Catholic and religious culture. On another level, the post can be read as expressing certain doubts that have arisen in his own mind about various attitudes and practices within Catholic culture. Frankly, I am not sure whether to take the post as setting forth propositions that Krehbiel himself takes firmly and unambiguously to be his own and clearly and unambiguously true. Maybe so; maybe not. The post raises more questions than it answers, except for the obvious problem of the sex-abuse crisis and the possible feminization of Catholic parish culture at certain levels. A constant thread running through the post is Krehbiel's disgust with the sex-abuse scandal and distaste for a general 'sissified' drift he claims to detect in Catholic culture. I do not agree with key elements of his assessment, and neither will many of you; yet I think that most of the questions raised here are of sufficient importance to warrant a substantial analysis and discussion. If there is any truth in the propositions that follow, they should concern us indeed.
What follows is his post (green) with my comments (red): (Spence Publishing Company, 1999), and looked forward to reading it when it first came out, I found it disappointing on several levels. First, I thought the historical parts of the book were weak. Second, I thought that although he made some good points about the feminization of contemporary Catholic parish culture, his attempt to generalize that claim historically foundered, as exemplified in the quotation above. The historical accusation amounts to little more than empty conjecture. Certainly, as a victim of sexual abuse himself -- he says he was sexually assaulted by a classmate in seminary -- Podles has personal reasons for his animus, and for the sequel he has published, entitled Sacrilege: Sexual Abuse in the Catholic Church (Crossland Press, 2007). Yet, although the facts remain virtually untouched by the media, some honest statistical reporting on sexual abuse among Protestant clergy show figures ranking neck-and-neck, if not surpassing, those of the recent Catholic scandal. I think there's plenty of sin to go around; but what does that prove? Surprise, surprise -- only that we are all sinners.]
The bottom line is that there’s a huge problem here that many Catholics aren’t willing to face up to. Perhaps JPII saw this and that was part of his reason for promoting his “theology of the body.” I doubt it, but ... maybe.Notes
Hard on the heels of the recent flap over Christopher West's ABC Nightline discussion of John Paul II's theology of the body as representing the "sexiest" religion in the world ("A theology of the body too far?" Musings, May 11, 2009) came news of "Ex-Archbishop Weakland coming out of the closet" (Musings, May 17, 2009). Given this recrudescence of pelvic issues in recent news, perhaps the theme warrants a more deliberate revisiting.
This, of course, is a huge subject, just as huge as the pelvic obsessions of our culture, which have led to the proliferation of pornography, legalized contraception (Griswold v. Connecticut, 1965), widespread recreational sex, a bull market in sex-enhancement drugs, prostitution, sex toys, sex bars, sex slaves, rampant adultery, runaway divorce, legalized abortion (Roe vs. Wade, 1973), broken homes, single-parent families, skyrocketing numbers of welfare moms, child abuse, the mainstreaming of homosexualism, same-sex 'marriage' and sodomy, and the greater part of those social and moral toxins that afflict us in our fatally diseased Culture of Death.
The issue of sex has been addressed thoroughly in a positive light by the late John Paul II in his Theology of the Body -- now famous, thanks to the publicity of Christopher West. Yet the issue continues to present itself as a problem for the Church in multiple ways -- not only through quotidian pastoral questions about personal sexual sins, contraception, autoeroticism, homosexual acts, pre-marital cohabitation, divorce, annulments, remarriage, women's ordination, and the like; but through questions raised by the legacy of the huge sex-abuse scandal involving the priestly molestation of (mostly) young boys publicized by the Boston Globe in 2002, as well as proximate questions raised by the continuing debate over priestly celibacy, recently fueled by comments by former New York Archbishop Cardinal Edward M. Egan (March 12, 2009) and his successor, Archbishop Timothy Dolan (May 16, 2009).
This last issue of priestly celibacy is often perceived, it seems, whether rightly or wrongly, as a point of vulnerability in the current discipline of the Church, as well as in Catholic tradition, and a means by which her general attitude to sex and gender is frequently called into question.
Ordinarily I confess that I find it difficult to take seriously criticisms of the Catholic tradition of priestly celibacy, since I think the aboriginal antiquity and legitimacy of the tradition has been amply demonstrated -- for example, by Ignace de la Potterie, "The biblical foundation of priestly celibacy" (Vatican website), or by Christian Cochini's Apostolic Origins of Priestly Celibacy
(Ignatius, 1990). Moreover, no arguments I have so far encountered against the ongoing practice of priestly celibacy have struck me as the least bit convincing, and I can think of ample reason for supporting it -- not only St. Paul's counsel that an unmarried man retains his freedom to give his undivided attention to things of the Lord, while the married man is inevitably filled with worldly cares about how to care for his family and wife (1 Corinthians 7:32-33) -- although that may be reason enough: I have often wondered how Blessed Fr. Damien's priestly vocation among the lepers of Molokai might have fared had he been married and had wife and family to go home to each night. I have also wondered how St. Francis Xavier's vocation as a missionary in Asia would have fared had he not been able to win the confidence of the indigenous peoples by demonstrating that he and his fellow Jesuits and Franciscans were sworn to chastity, poverty, and obedience, and were thus no threat to their women, their wealth, or their government. Yet there are also other reasons, too, such as the stark counter-cultural witness of a priest's consecrated celibacy to the deeper spiritual reality of the Church's nuptial fidelity to Christ within a culture of narcissistic sexual self-indulgence.Even so, various tangentially-related issues often arise alongside the question of priestly celibacy that may warrant further consideration. A challenging example of how this can occur is found in a recent post by my friend, Gregory Krehbiel.[1]
The post is entitled "There is something deeply troubling about the Catholic Church’s problem with sex" (Crowhill Weblog, May 15, 2009). What he says in his post is troubling indeed. On one level, it can be read as sounding an alarm about certain (mostly recent) trends he claims to detect in Catholic and religious culture -- or, at the very least, in broadly-held views of Catholic and religious culture. On another level, the post can be read as expressing certain doubts that have arisen in his own mind about various attitudes and practices within Catholic culture. Frankly, I am not sure whether to take the post as setting forth propositions that Krehbiel himself takes firmly and unambiguously to be his own and clearly and unambiguously true. Maybe so; maybe not. The post raises more questions than it answers, except for the obvious problem of the sex-abuse crisis and the possible feminization of Catholic parish culture at certain levels. A constant thread running through the post is Krehbiel's disgust with the sex-abuse scandal and distaste for a general 'sissified' drift he claims to detect in Catholic culture. I do not agree with key elements of his assessment, and neither will many of you; yet I think that most of the questions raised here are of sufficient importance to warrant a substantial analysis and discussion. If there is any truth in the propositions that follow, they should concern us indeed.
What follows is his post (green) with my comments (red):
I don’t mean to say that the problem is with the doctrines (nor do I mean to support all of them). [I'm not entirely sure what he means by his parenthetical remark, although it seems clear that he has some doubts about the discipline of priestly celibacy, as we shall see.] The problem is in the culture. Something in the Catholic culture re: sex is disturbing at a very deep level. [One catches a hint of something sinister here, though in my view there is little warrant for it. Sex, after all, is like fire -- powerful. It's good, when used properly and treated with respect, but exceedingly dangerous when treated carelessly or abused. If the Church seems deeply ambivalent about sex, my first inclination would be to credit this to her discernment, not to question her sensibilities. Let us wait and see, however; perhaps he means something else.]It may be dark, Lee, but it’s not all that unlikely, IMO. [I admit that I, too, was captivated when I first saw the title of Leon Podles' book, The Church Impotent: The Feminization of Christianity
This has been brewing in my mind for a long time. Part of it is disgust at the sex-abuse crisis and related problems. Part of it is bewilderment re: the insistence on mandatory celibacy for priests.
But a large part of it is just the drip, drip of a general sense of sissiness. There’s a cumulative weight of ... something. I don’t even know if I have the right word for it. Some say the church is too “feminine,” but that doesn’t quite do it because femininity is a good thing. (At least in women.) It might be better to call it “anti-masculinity.” [Here we're getting somewhere -- at something directly addressed by Leon Podles in his article, "The Church Impotent: The Feminization of Christianity," Crisis Magazine (February 1999), as well as his book
The end result if that if you were to take all the messed up things I hated about the 70s, boil it down and make me drink it, that would be a good approximation of how I feel at mass. It’s trite, maudlin, sentimental and drippy. [We've discussed this matter before in Musings, particularly in the context of liturgical questions. Something of this is addressed by Thomas Day's now classic Why Catholics Can't Sing: The Culture of Catholicism and the Triumph of Bad Taste
But I digress.
Let’s review some general trends re: religion and Catholicism and see if they add up to anything.
1. Religion (in general) attracts women in disproportionate numbers.
Lee Podles has done a lot of work on this. The point is not that men aren’t religious, but that women are more religious. Furthermore, the more feminine a religion becomes, the less the men want to be involved. (The opposite does not seem to be true. Masculine forms of religion still attract women.)
I know some people like to dispute this, or say “it’s not like that in my church” (have you counted?), but the people who look for facts and statistics have found a clear trend. [This is a serious issue that nobody seems to want to touch. When it comes to the average suburban parish, the Director of Religious Education (DRE) is nearly always a woman, and so are various and sundry other "ministers" of one sort or another. Why is this? One answer may be that men don't volunteer. Again, why is this? I've heard it said that pastors prefer working with women because they are generally more compliant. However that may be, I have previously noted my own observation that when a priest is surrounded by ten or more female Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion at the altar, he looks a bit like an out-of-place gentleman in a kitchen surrounded by bustling women. Leon Podles' description of contemporary churches as "women's clubs with a few male officers," does not seem far off the mark. There is a huge problem here, whether anyone wants to deal with it or not; and I haven't even mentioned the effect on boys serving at the altar.]
2. Catholicism has been down on sex for a long time.
Modern apologists will take issue with this by referring to recent developments like John Paul II’s theology of the body and that sort of thing, but the Catholic Church has a long history of encouraging young women and men to the celibate life by implying that a married life is a sorry, second choice that God will (reluctantly, “Oh, okay, if you have to”) put up with if you can’t do any better (i.e., forsake sex “for the kingdom”). [Calling marriage a "sorry, second choice" overstates the matter, it seems to me. Yet, the fact is that something of this preferential attitude toward celibacy is found in the words of Jesus and St. Paul themselves. Jesus says, for example, that "some men are celibate from birth, while some are celibate because they have been made that way by others. Still others are celibate because they have made themselves that way for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let anyone accept this who can" (Matthew 19:12); and St. Paul counsels: "It is good for a man not to marry .... I wish that all men were as I am. But each man has his own gift from God; one has this gift, another has that. Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I am. But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion" (1 Corinthians 7:1, 7-9). Thus, Jesus and Paul both regard celibacy as a gift to which all should aspire, but which is not given to everyone. The Church doesn't force anyone into celibacy anymore than she forces anyone into the priesthood. It goes without saying that Catholic priesthood is not a 'right' but a divine vocation with its proper charisms.]
For those also-rans who elect to marry, the church has a history of trying to regulate the heck out of their sex lives. Not during Lent. Not on Sundays. Etc. etc. When you look at what the church fathers and the medieval penitential writers say about sex, and the list of restrictions they encouraged, it’s pretty much impossible not to conclude that they regarded sex as a necessary evil. To get some idea of this, go to google book search and take a peak inside Law, Sex, and Christian Society in Medieval Europe
Think about the message that’s sent by saying a priest has to be celibate. It doesn’t matter how many caveats and conditions you put on it. The celibacy requirement implies that holiness means no sex. It implies that you can choose girls or God, but not both. It’s like Merlin in some book I read — sex messes up the magic. [It is an ancient Judeo-Christian tradition that fasting from sex, like fasting from food, promotes spiritual clarity, insight, and personal holiness. Why did the Jews in the Old Testament abstain from conjugal relations when preparing for divine worship, or St. Paul mention sexual abstinence for the sake of prayer?][3]
Obviously that’s not the whole story. Marriage is a sacrament, of course, and for every cultural trend you can find a counter-trend. (There are married saints ... but very few. And I’ll bet I wouldn’t want to imitate their sex lives.)
My point is that there’s a strong anti-sex theme within Catholicism, and that theme has had an effect on the church to this day. To some extent people are getting over it, but it’s still a problem. (I suppose someone could argue that making marriage a sacrament actually goes along with the anti-sex attitude. I.e., “Ha ha, it’s a sacrament so we get to regulate it!”) [This strikes me as rather superficial, like a comment one might get from the secular media, and Mr. Krehbiel would probably agree; however, I recognize the frustration here and the difficulty of the issue. On the one hand, the Church affirms the goodness of sex within conjugal relations open to life, and in this respect a Catholic could readily affirm the view I've heard attributed to a prominent Dominican that sanctimonious prissiness has no place in the marriage bed -- that, on the contrary, the marriage bed should positively rattle the rafters during conjugal lovemaking. On the other hand, however, the Church seems extremely sensitive to the uncanny dangers of sex, as clearly emerges in the warnings of saints like Augustne and Thomas Aquinas against the dangers of narcissistic lust (reducing one's spouse to a convenient object for self-gratification) even within conjugal relations. St. Thomas even ranks "wife rape" higher in the order of grave sins than adultery (ST II-II, Q 154, a 12). It seems to me that the secular (and Protestant?) world could be missing something important beneath the surface of appearances here.]
3. Catholicism is culturally anti-masculine.[4]
Again, somebody will object to this. Somebody will say the power structure in Catholic Church is an all-boys’ club, the Vatican is full of men, only men can be priests, etc., so how can I say the church is anti-masculine?
For one thing, have you seen the frilly stuff they wear in the Vatican? Serge would just love it.
But seriously, would a masculine church be upset by the death penalty? Would a masculine church spend so much time worrying about gestures and vestments and how to fold the napkin? Would a masculine church allow the feminists to carve “male headship” readings out of the lectionary? Would a masculine church allow an entire profession to be stained by the charge of pederasty? (Imagine, for comparisons’ sake, if some percentage of construction workers were notorious pederasts, and everybody started equating “construction worker” with “pederast.” What do you think would happen?) [A couple of questions here. First, are opposition to the death penalty and "male headship" texts in the Bible a reflection of Catholic tradition, or liberal and feminist influences in contemporary Catholic culture? Second, who benefits the most from those who promote slackness in the observance of liturgical rubrics: orthodox men or heterodox women? And where do you find boys climbing over each other to become altar servers -- in liturgies where sneakers and jeans and slackness (and girls) are permitted, or those where cassock and surplice and months of practice are de rigueur and no female servers are found?]
I realize that I’m being just a little silly in my examples here, but ... look, some things are intuitively obvious. If you don’t believe me, check out the priest in the oovoo commercial. (Why did they portray him that way?) Or google “mark shea masculine and feminine.” Or just read the newspaper. [I remember first running into the argument that Catholicism is historically "feminine" in Podles' book and thinking it weak, where he champions various other Christian traditions (Protestant and Eastern Orthodox) as more masculine and male-affirming than Catholicism. When it comes to the contemporary Catholic parish, I admit, he might have a point. Take any number of songs sung in a typical suburban Catholic parish, like "Be Not Afraid" (St. Louis Jesuits), "Take and Eat" (Michael Joncas), "Sing a New Song" (Dan Schutte), "We Remember" (Marty Haugen), or "We Have Been Told" (David Haas), and compare them with any of the following selections from the Russian Orthodox Divine Liturgy of St. Chrysostom.
4. The priesthood — a gay profession.
Not all priests are gay. Probably not a majority. And manly men can become priests and retain their masculinity. I know some.
But let’s be honest. If religion is somewhat skewed towards the feminine to begin with, and Catholicism is even more skewed in that direction (and towards a deep distrust of sex), and priests are supposed to renounce marriage .... Isn’t that going to influence the kind of men who will apply for the priesthood? Isn’t it going to attract too many men who can’t deal with their sexuality — who are trying to run away from all those questions?
Of course it will.
If you don’t believe me, Google “gay subculture in priesthood” to see what I mean.
[Two things here: first, nobody who has followed the news about the sex-abuse crisis in the Church since 2002 or read Michael S. Rose's Goodbye! Good Men: How Catholic Seminaries Turned Away Two Generations of Vocations From the Priesthood
In this post — If half of this is true, how is it possible to take the Catholic Church seriously? — Lee Podles made the following comment:My darkest suspicion is that pederasty has been entrenched in the clergy as an inheritance from classical antiquity, and that only occasionally does it come to light. St. Peter Damian denounced it in the Middle Ages, but nothing was done to extirpate it.
(Spence Publishing Company, 1999), and looked forward to reading it when it first came out, I found it disappointing on several levels. First, I thought the historical parts of the book were weak. Second, I thought that although he made some good points about the feminization of contemporary Catholic parish culture, his attempt to generalize that claim historically foundered, as exemplified in the quotation above. The historical accusation amounts to little more than empty conjecture. Certainly, as a victim of sexual abuse himself -- he says he was sexually assaulted by a classmate in seminary -- Podles has personal reasons for his animus, and for the sequel he has published, entitled Sacrilege: Sexual Abuse in the Catholic Church (Crossland Press, 2007). Yet, although the facts remain virtually untouched by the media, some honest statistical reporting on sexual abuse among Protestant clergy show figures ranking neck-and-neck, if not surpassing, those of the recent Catholic scandal. I think there's plenty of sin to go around; but what does that prove? Surprise, surprise -- only that we are all sinners.] The bottom line is that there’s a huge problem here that many Catholics aren’t willing to face up to. Perhaps JPII saw this and that was part of his reason for promoting his “theology of the body.” I doubt it, but ... maybe.Notes
- Mr. Krehbiel and I enjoyed a brief correspondence about Catholicism some ten-or-fifteen years ago, back when he was on his way into the Church. I enjoyed reading a number of essays he sent me at that time, and considered them quite insightful. While I can't speak for where he is now religiously, I can say that I've always appreciated his knack for cutting through nonsense, and his nose for hypocrisy. He has a great imagination and energy, has authored a number of novels, brews his own beer, and is a connoisseur of fine Jethro Tull. If you have followed his Crowhill Blog, you will know that his sojourn in the Catholic Church since 1999 has been something less than an altogether sanguine experience. "I'm not one of those cheer-leading Catholic converts," he wrote back in 2006: "On the contrary, I often feel like a man who has spent many years on a difficult quest to join the Arthurian round table only to find a bunch of sissies in velvet playing Chutes and Ladders." [back]
- The Anglican scholar, Peter Brown, is much better in terms of even-handedness, in The Body and Society: Men, Women, and Sexual Renunciation in Early Christianity
- Keils-Delitsch's Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament, Vol. 2: Pentateuch [Exodus], trans. Rev. James Martin (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1866), p. 393, refers to "the law and custom, of abstaining from conjugal intercourse during preparation for acts of divine worship, or performance of the same (Ex 19:15; 1 Sam. 21:5, 6; 2 Sam. 11:4)"; and Paul himself refers married couples periodically abstaining from conjugal relations "that you may devote yourselves to prayer" (1 Cor. 7:5). Even in Eastern churches, married men may not be ordained bishops, and although married men are permitted to be ordained as deacons and priests, they may not remarry if widowed.
There are obviously two ways to look at all of this: EITHER this attitude toward sex involves the silly repression of a good thing (I would call this the prevailing secular and Protestant view, which I used to get ad nauseam from some of my "sin-boldly-since-grace-abounds" Lutheran friends), OR there are deeper reasons justifying it even if they may be beneath the surface and difficult to easily discern -- like Merlin's magic, perhaps -- only, profoundly Christian. The Church's proscription of autoeroticism clearly falls within this sphere. Those who engage in the activity, are typically inclined to dismiss it as harmless -- a view shared by the Evangelical James Dobson of Focus on the Family, who once famously declared that "masturbation is not much of an issue with God" (Preparing for Adolescence, p. 83) -- though John Paul II seems clearly to have the deeper discernment when he suggests that such activity on the part of men feeds a predatory attitude towards women, in which they are increasingly regarded as objects of use for subjective enjoyment as an end-in-itself. [back] - This has all been said in one way or another by Nietzsche before, who derisively scorned Christianity as weak, effeminate, and life-denying. He championed classical manly virtues, like courage, self-discipline, and strength, and despised the theological virtues (faith, hope, and charity) as weak and female. One can almost hear him reciting the Beatitudes in a mocking, effeminate voice, dripping with sarcasm: "Blessed are the POOR in spirit, the MEEK, the MERCIFUL, the PURE, the PEACEMAKERS ... It's because you're a bunch cowardly wusses and wimps and resent the fact that you don't have what it takes to be real MEN (power, intelligence, wealth, health and good looks) that you've gone and turned morality on its head by saying that God is on the side of the weak and oppressed, the poor and sickly and miserably mediocre and ugly!" The definitive philosophical answer to this, however, is the argument of Ressentiment
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
Where are the sunshine Jewish Patriots who voted for Obama now?
In the face of this: "Iran general says could stop Israel in 'one strike'" (Breibart.com, May 24, 2009), the Obama administration appears, amidst a complacent world, to be signing a warrant for "The Death of Israel" (Newsmax.com, May 24, 2009). Dick Morris & Eileen McGann write:
Whatever you may think, don't get too comfortable: "Half of Israelis back immediate strike on Iran" (Breibart.com, May 24, 2009). And why? "74 percent of those questioned [in a survey published by Tel Aviv University] said they believe that new US President Barack Obama's efforts will not stop the Islamic republic from acquiring atomic weapons."
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." -- George Santayana
[Hat tip to S.K.]
From Caroline Glick, deputy editor and op-ed writer for the Jerusalem Post, comes alarming news. An expert on Arab-Israeli relations with excellent sources deep inside Netanyahu's government, she reports that CIA chief Leon Panetta recently took time out from his day job (feuding with Nancy Pelosi) to travel to Israel to "read the riot act" to the government warning against an attack on Iran.If a suicide bomber cannot be deterred by the threat of death, can a theocracy be deterred by ... sanctions? Go see a psychiatrist.
More ominously, Glick reports (likely from sources high up in the Israeli government) that the Obama administration has all but accepted as irreversible and unavoidable fact that Iran will soon develop nuclear weapons. She writes, "...we have learned that the [Obama] administration has made its peace with Iran's nuclear aspirations. Senior administration officials acknowledge as much in off-record briefings. It is true, they say, that Iran may exploit its future talks with the US to run down the clock before they test a nuclear weapon. But, they add, if that happens, the U.S. will simply have to live with a nuclear-armed mullocracy."
She goes on to write that the Obama administration is desperate to stop Israel from attacking Iran writing that "as far as the [Obama] administration is concerned, if Israel could just leave Iran's nuclear installations alone, Iran would behave itself."
Whatever you may think, don't get too comfortable: "Half of Israelis back immediate strike on Iran" (Breibart.com, May 24, 2009). And why? "74 percent of those questioned [in a survey published by Tel Aviv University] said they believe that new US President Barack Obama's efforts will not stop the Islamic republic from acquiring atomic weapons."
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." -- George Santayana
[Hat tip to S.K.]
Monday, May 25, 2009
Dignifying ourselves to death
Thesis
"Washington state woman 1st death under new suicide law" (My Way News, May 23, 2009): "I am a very spiritual person, and it was very important to me to be conscious, clear-minded and alert at the time of my death," said Linda Fleming, 66-year-old woman with late-stage pancreatic cancer, before taking a deadly dose of prescription barbiturates, with family members, her physician and her dog at her side at her home in Sequim, Washington. Fleming became the first person to kill herself under Washington state's new assisted suicide law, known as "death with dignity."
Antithesis
"Undercover sting operation exposes the assisted-suicide group Final Exit Network" (International Task Force on Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide Update, 2009, Vol 23, No. 2):
On February 25, 2009, the organization Final Exit Network (FEN) made headlines across the country. But, it was not good news for the group. Four of its key members had been arrested as a result of an undercover sting operation conducted by the Georgia Bureau of Investigation (GBI). Mainstream media called the organization a "suicide ring" and law enforcement's investigation in nine states a "raid" and a "bust"-much to the dismay of FEN faithful, who view themselves as compassionate, volunteer "exit guides" out to help their fellow members with "intolerable medical conditions" commit suicide. [FEN Press Release, 2/26/09]
... The GBI's investigation revealed the process FEN uses for suicides. After paying a $50 FEN membership fee and applying for suicide assistance, the member is visited by an exit guide, who instructs the member to buy two helium canisters and a clear plastic "Exit Bag" customized with tubing to connect to the helium tanks. On the day of the scheduled suicide, the member is visited by both the exit guide and a senior exit guide who explains the details involved in bringing about the member's death. After the member is dead, the exit guides remove all evidence from the scene and make it look as though the member died naturally. [GBI Press Release, 2/25/09; AP, 3/2/09] "It's grotesque," said ITF Executive Director Rita Marker. "There's no dignity in getting a plastic bag over your head." [LA Times, 2/27/09]
Key in the case against the 3,000-member FEN will be testimony by the GBI undercover agent who infiltrated the organization by claiming to have pancreatic cancer (a claim, the GBI said, FEN accepted without requesting confirmation). [Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 2/25/09] When senior exit guide Ted Goodwin demonstrated what would happen after the agent put the plastic bag over his head, "[Goodwin] got on top of him and held his hands down," explained GBI spokesperson John Bankhead. "[He] firmly held his hands down so he couldn't move." This action, Bankhead said, would have prevented the agent from removing the bag during an actual suicide if he had changed his mind. In the Celmer case, for which Goodwin and Blehr have been charged, both exit guides admitted they held Celmer's hands down. [NBC News 11, 2/27/09; NY Times, 3/11/09]
FEN's new president, Jerry Dincin, denied the allegation that exit guides restrain the hands of soon-to-be dead members. While he admits that holding hands is a part of the assisted-suicide process, he said exit guides do it "in the way that you would a frightened child, to calm them." But FEN's own "First Responder Information" form reportedly outlines why exit guides might want to firmly hold a member's hands down: once the process starts, if the flow of helium is interrupted, severe brain damage could result-and they would have a botched suicide on their hands. [Sunday Paper (Atlanta), 3/29/09]
Sunday, May 24, 2009
Next Tridentine Mass at St. Albertus Scheduled
Tridentine Community News (May 24, 2009):
[Comments? Please e-mail tridnews@stjosaphatchurch.org. Previous columns are available at www.stjosaphatchurch.org. This edition of Tridentine Community News, with minor editions, is from the St. Josaphat bulletin insert for May 24, 2009. Hat tip to A.B.]St. Josaphat’s neighbor down Canfield Avenue, and Detroit’s first Polish parish, St. Albertus Church, will be holding its next Extraordinary Form Mass on Sunday, June 7 at noon. Fr. Mark Borkowski will be celebrant, and musicians and servers from Assumption-Windsor and St. Josaphat will be assisting.
St. Albertus has had quite a bit of press recently because of two bold, and unfortunate, thefts of copper from their roof. Fortunately, the bandits were caught, and security around the church has been improved.
Readers may recall that the organ at St. Albertus, which had not functioned for many years prior, was made playable once again in 2008 for the last Tridentine Mass. However, the stops, which control the sounds that an organ can make, were not functional; the organ had to be played with all pipes on. In the intervening months, the console (keyboard) of the organ has been rebuilt, with new ivory key covers and new electrical contacts under the keys and stop levers, thereby enabling the organist once again to select the sounds the instrument can make.
Each pipe in the instrument has been or will be removed and cleaned by volunteers under the direction of organ-builder Vladimir Vaculik – the same Vladimir who substitutes at St. Josaphat and Sweetest Heart of Mary, and who plays most weeks for the Tridentine Mass at All Saints Church in Flint. Approximately half of the pipes have been refurbished thus far. St. Albertus leaders wanted to achieve a reasonable degree of completion of this second phase of organ reconstruction before the next Tridentine Mass was held.
Concurrent with the organ project, St. Josaphat and Assumption substitute organist Dr. Steven Ball, an expert in bell systems, has offered to repair St. Albertus’ long-dormant tower bells this summer. God willing, they will once again ring out at the Consecration at a Tridentine Mass in the near future.We encourage all of our readers who have not yet been to St. Albertus to see a Mass held in this ornate and expansive house of worship, and to thank the dedicated volunteers there for making improvements to their edifice to benefit the Extraordinary Form. One has to wonder, is there any other place on earth where three such majestic churches stand so near one another on one street, and all regularly host Tridentine Masses?
Pilgrim Virgin Statue to Return
Arrangements have been made for the Pilgrim Virgin Statue of Fatima to return this fall. As in 2008, the statue will visit St. Joseph, St. Josaphat, and Sweetest Heart of Mary Churches on three successive days. Tridentine Masses will be held at each of the three churches in the evening.
Fr. Bisig Visits Flint Tridentine Community
On Sunday, May 10, our sister Tridentine Mass Community at All Saints Church in Flint, Michigan welcomed guest celebrant Fr. Josef Bisig, FSSP. Choir members and altar servers from Assumption-Windsor and St. Josaphat were invited to assist at this Mass. A regular visitor to Assumption and All Saints, Fr. Bisig is the co-founder of the Fraternity of St. Peter and current rector of its U.S. Seminary.
It is an honor for St. Josaphat and Assumption to be asked to help with such special liturgical events. How blessed we are to live in an era and region in which there is openness to restoring the classic liturgy to our churches.
Friday, May 22, 2009
What happened to Moral Clarity at Notre Dame
The HBCU (Hist. Black College & University) Correspondent we keep on retainer wired in this item for review:
Update 5/23/09The President "scored big at Notre Dame" Sunday and here is why, according to William McGurn at the Wall Street Journal. President Obama was clear about his principles, while Notre Dame remains clearly ambiguous.
At Notre Dame today, there is no pro-life organization -- in size, in funding, in prestige -- that compares with the many centers, institutes and so forth dedicated to other important issues ranging from peace and justice to protecting the environment. Perhaps this explains why a number of pro-life professors tell me they must not be quoted by name, lest they face career retaliation.At Notre Dame? I thought perhaps the president of ND might have gotten into some hot water, but McGurn's take suggests quite clearly that nothing will come of this whole episode other than another nail in the coffin of moral clarity.
George Neumayr, "Two models of hope (Notre Dame chooses Obama’s over its namesake’s)" (Free Republic, May 18, 2009). Excerpts:[Hat tip to J.M.]"It is not beyond our capacity to know the intentions of God... It is certain, not doubtful, that killing unborn children and the elderly is unjust. It is certain, not doubtful, that man is made for heterosexuality, not homosexuality. It is certain, not doubtful, that God exists and man owes him piety. What is doubtful, indeed destructive, is Obama’s glib notion that a civilized democracy is attainable without these truths.
.... A country that gives Obama’s skepticism and relativism a privileged and honored place in public life while treating the existence of God and the natural moral law as mere “opinions” and uncertainties has stripped away the grounds for hope. ...
Man, as a dependent creature who comes from God and culminates in him, cannot save himself from death nor his society from disintegration. By honoring Obama’s “audacious hope,” Notre Dame has put its faith in princes and forgotten the model of hope that its namesake preeminently embodies.
L'Osservatore Romano Editor: "Obama not pro-abortion"
Oh, please.... But then, this isn't the first time the Vatican newspaper has drawn the ire of Catholics by its bullish stance on Obama and his toxic jelly-brained policies. George Weigel has already parsed the Vatican newspaper, noting that it has "created more than a little mischief recently, featuring essays by ill-informed European journalists who imagine that they understand American history, the American political scene, and the grave moral issues being contested in these United States." These writers cannot be thought to speak for the Pope. Here is the problem, in microcosm, of the Church's media policy. It appears to have none. Who speaks for the Church if not the Pope, and who speaks for the Pope if not L'Osservatore Romano? C'mon folks: get a grip. This isn't a dress rehearsal.
Oh me, Oh my, Obama
In the shadow of President Trueman, Mr. Obama declares: "The Buck Stops Elsewhere!" (NRO, May 21, 2009), by The Editors. His message: I'm Not Taking Responsibility for Anything:
President Obama wants you to know that nothing is ever his fault.The future of geo-politics looks dicey -- especially vis-a-vis Israel and Iran, which, together with Al-Queda, make the Middle East a tinder box.
He gave a speech on national-security matters Thursday the gist of which was: George W. Bush left me a mess, and I’m doing the best I can to clean it up. A more forthright theme would have been: Radical Islam has thrust the United States into a defensive war, and it’s now my duty to protect the nation — despite legal complications created by left-wing lawyers, many of whom are now working in my administration.
President Obama described Bush’s counterterrorism program as an “ad hoc legal approach for fighting terrorism that was neither effective nor sustainable ...."
In point of fact, the Bush administration’s counterterrorism campaign was anything but ad hoc. It was extraordinarily effective, and it is entirely sustainable — which President Obama has shown by sustaining its major elements.
Thursday, May 21, 2009
Alleluja, Ascendit Deus in Jubilatione!
tubae, alleluja." -- Psalm 46:6
The Feast of the Ascension reminds us of the pledge of our salvation that is ours through Christ. It brings to mind the thought, echoed somewhere in St. Athanasius, that as God became man in Christ without losing His divinity, so we shall become partakers of the divine nature (1 Peter 1:4) without losing our humanity. Why? Because in the Ascension, He elevates our humanity in His own Person to the right hand of God the Father.Two things struck me at the Mass of the Ascension today, which in the old calendar is not moved to the closet Sunday for those who find the joy of assisting at Mass on a weekday an inconvenience. The first was our priest's homily, about which I will say more momentarily. The second was the delight of singing Salve Regina coelitum in the traditional Latin.
What struck me about the homily was Father's exceptional giftedness, of which he probably is not in the least conscious. As far as he's concerned, the impression I get is that he just sees himself as having a job to do, and he does it. But the remarkable thing is how well he does it. It is not just that he is utterly fearless in preaching those things that we Catholics need to hear but too often don't, even at the risk of stepping on toes. That alone would make such a priest an exceptional gift to any parish. Rather, what I have in view here is his natural gift for communicating important things in a simple and accessible way.
In this evening's homily he pulled together in a neat synthesis a remarkable number of items from the liturgical calendar, traditional devotions, biblical exposition, and hortative applications. He began by noting that in the calendar of the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Liturgy, Ascension Thursday falls precisely 40 days after Easter, just as Jesus, according to the New Testament narratives, remained for 40 days with His Apostles before His Ascension.
Tomorrow begins the mother of all novenas, the Novena to the Holy Spirit, the most ancient of novenas, culminating in the descent of the Holy Spirit upon the Apostles and Blessed Mother at Pentecost, exactly ten days hence. As the Catholic Encyclopedia says:
... for every novena of preparation, as also for every novena of prayer, not only the best explanation but also the best model and example was given by Christ Himself to the Church in the first Pentecost novena. He Himself expressly exhorted the Apostles to make this preparation. And when the young Church had faithfully persevered for nine full days in it, the Holy Ghost came as the precious fruit of this first Christian novena for the feast of the establishment and foundation of the Church.St. Luke records in Acts 1:1-11 (the Epistle for today) that Jesus "commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but should wait for the promise of the Father." What follows upon this awaited promise of the Holy Spirit? Authority and power. Before His Ascension, Jesus says: "... you shall receive the power of the Holy Ghost coming upon you, and you shall be witnesses unto Me in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and even to the uttermost part of the earth." Likewise, St. Mark 16:14-20 (the Gospel for today) juxtaposes the new signs and wonders that the Apostles may expect to perform with the imperative: "Go ye into the whole world and preach the Gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved: but he that beliveth not shall be condemned."
Thus the liturgical feast days, the traditional novena, and Biblical texts fit together seamlessly. What made the homily exceptional, however, was the way Father developed the Biblical narrative in experiential terms that helped it come alive. While I cannot hope to reproduce his homily with all his illustrations properly connect here, I offer a few thoughts in following.
How indescribably stunning the rapid succession of these events must have been for Jesus' little band of Apostles: He rises from the dead; and as if that weren't enough to keep them reeling in vertigo, forty days later He ascends from the earth and disappears into the heavens! How dizzying it must have been for them.
In the interval, Jesus spent forty days with them, but they did not at first fathom the reality of His Resurrection. Jesus once appeared to them after a night of fishing on the Sea of Tiberias, in which they caught nothing; but they did not recognize Him. St. John writes: "Early in the morning, Jesus stood on the shore, but the disciples did not realize that it was Jesus" (Jn. 21:4). Only after Jesus tells them to cast their nets on the other side of their boat, and their nets were miraculously filled to overflowing, did John say to Peter: "It is the Lord!" and Peter jumped into the water and rushed to Him. "When they had landed, they saw a fire of burning coals there with fish on it, and some bread," writes John (v.9). Remarkable: Jesus fixed them breakfast and had it waiting for them!
This was the third time that Jesus had appeared to them, and yet they had trouble believing that He had truly risen. Then, only a week or two later, Jesus stood before them on a mountain, and, having finished instructing them, was lifted up before them and ascended into Heaven.
One of the themes Father developed was that of parting -- of all good things coming to an end. Once it sank into their heads that Jesus had really returned to them from the dead, the Apostles must have found the departure of Jesus a precipitous and shocking disappointment. How often do we, too, find ourselves dreading the moment when some pleasant experience draws to a close, when friends, family members, or relatives must leave or be parted from one another. The son or daughter must go off to kindergarten, and the mother feels the pangs of sadness at the parting, no less than the child. A vacation draws to a close. The festivities of a Polish Christmas Eve or family reunion comes to an end, and grandmother and grandfather, or grandchildren, must leave. Then, of course, there is the ultimate separation of death.
What we have difficulty grasping, however, is the greater good that comes only via these partings. The kindergartener graduates and moves on through successive grades in order to grow into a mature adult. Jesus leaves His followers and ascends to Heaven, in order that He might send us the gift of the Holy Spirit. The final separation of death is but a prelude to the Eternal Reunion of the heavenly family. As C.S. Lewis once put it, when seeing off a friend in a crowded London train station, having turned and walked across the street through the crowd, and turning again to shout back at his friend over the mass of heads between them: "Christians never have to say Goodbye!"
Salve Regina coelitum
1. Sálve Regína coélitum,
O María. Sors única terrígenum,
O María.
Jubiláte Chérubim,
exsultáte Séraphim,
consonáte pérpetim.
Sálve, sálve, sálve Regína.
2. Máter misericórdiae,
O María. Dúlcis párens cleméntiae,
O María. Jubilate ...
3. Tu vítae lux, fons grátiae,
O María. Cáusa nóstrae laetítiae,
O María. Jubilate ...
4. Spes nostra, salve, Domina
O Maria. Exstingue nostra crimina!
O Maria. Jubilate ...
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
Rampant Evolutionist fideism
"Missing Link Found, 'Eighth Wonder of the World'" (Sky News, May 20, 2009) and "Scientists Unveil Missing Link In Evolution" (SkyNews, May 20, 2009).
If this were a Pentecostal revival tent meeting, it would be one thing; but it's not. It's an Evolutionist revival tent meeting, with true believers waiving their arms in the air, babbling in tongues, rolling in the aisles, and falling in dead faints in front of the klieg lights and cameras.
These supposedly sober men of science have just unveiled a fossilized skeleton of a monkey that was actually found over 20 years ago. Why precisely now, during the bicentenary of Darwin's birth? Well, there's money to be made in all this hype, of course; and, given waxing interest in such "horrors" as Intelligent Design theory, it's high time for a new springtime in the New Evolutionist Evangelization, to shore up the flagging faith of the true believers. It's not likely they're really interested, however, in discussing these facts.
Oh, no, they breathlessly tell us, they've been secretly preparing to unveil the "eighth wonder of the world"!!! "[P]roof of this transitional species [they KNOW this, of course!] finally confirms Charles Darwin's theory of evolution"!!! Darwin "would have been thrilled" to have seen this fossil"!!!!
Unconfirmed reports continue to circulate that, according to reliable eyewitnesses, Richard Dawkins became so excited upon hearing this report that he soiled his trousers.
Dubbed "Ida," the fossil "tells us [FINALLY!] who we are and where we came from"!!! Right. And the fossil is precisely "47 million years old!" The scientific researchers, of course, KNOW that the figure could not have been, say, 42.3 million years, or 24.5 million years. This is HARD SCIENCE, after all ...
If you find that you have some difficulty mustering the kind of stratospheric leaps of faith called for by these true-believer Evolutionist pulpiteers, when they invite you, with every head bowed and every eye closed, to get up out of your seat and walk that sawdust trail up to the altar of self-congratulatory "scientific" enlightenment, you may want to try something a bit less emotional, more rational and level-headed.
I recommend Mortimer Adler, The Difference of Man and the Difference It Makes (New York: Fordham University Press, 1993).
Every bit as timely now as when it was first written, this is a remarkably well-researched book ... No, that is far too modest: the research is of breathtaking breadth, such as only a polymath intellectual like Adler could muster.
Adler phrases his title advisedly, precisely in the way he poses the problem. By focusing on the "difference" of man from non-man, he shows that the question at issue is of the sort that cannot be answered by any single discipline. Traditionally philosophy and theology have monopolized the subject of human nature; but neither philosophy or theology cannot presume to answer the question alone, as they cannot claim exclusive jurisdiction over the broad-ranging aspects of the question. Many facets of the question must be addressed by various special sciences, he shows, including biology, paleontology, neurology, psychology, and even computer science and research in artificial intelligence. But then, none of these special sciences is competent to reflect with epistemological self-consciousness upon their own first principles. That requires a philosophical mind, if not one versed also in matters of theology.
It is the single, most level-headed and most thoroughly researched discussion of the question I have seen. Highly recommended.
[Oh, then again, Adler is so gauche as to use the word "MAN" in his title. So what could he possibly know?]
Of related interest
If this were a Pentecostal revival tent meeting, it would be one thing; but it's not. It's an Evolutionist revival tent meeting, with true believers waiving their arms in the air, babbling in tongues, rolling in the aisles, and falling in dead faints in front of the klieg lights and cameras.
These supposedly sober men of science have just unveiled a fossilized skeleton of a monkey that was actually found over 20 years ago. Why precisely now, during the bicentenary of Darwin's birth? Well, there's money to be made in all this hype, of course; and, given waxing interest in such "horrors" as Intelligent Design theory, it's high time for a new springtime in the New Evolutionist Evangelization, to shore up the flagging faith of the true believers. It's not likely they're really interested, however, in discussing these facts.
Oh, no, they breathlessly tell us, they've been secretly preparing to unveil the "eighth wonder of the world"!!! "[P]roof of this transitional species [they KNOW this, of course!] finally confirms Charles Darwin's theory of evolution"!!! Darwin "would have been thrilled" to have seen this fossil"!!!!
Unconfirmed reports continue to circulate that, according to reliable eyewitnesses, Richard Dawkins became so excited upon hearing this report that he soiled his trousers.
Dubbed "Ida," the fossil "tells us [FINALLY!] who we are and where we came from"!!! Right. And the fossil is precisely "47 million years old!" The scientific researchers, of course, KNOW that the figure could not have been, say, 42.3 million years, or 24.5 million years. This is HARD SCIENCE, after all ...
If you find that you have some difficulty mustering the kind of stratospheric leaps of faith called for by these true-believer Evolutionist pulpiteers, when they invite you, with every head bowed and every eye closed, to get up out of your seat and walk that sawdust trail up to the altar of self-congratulatory "scientific" enlightenment, you may want to try something a bit less emotional, more rational and level-headed.
I recommend Mortimer Adler, The Difference of Man and the Difference It Makes
(New York: Fordham University Press, 1993). Every bit as timely now as when it was first written, this is a remarkably well-researched book ... No, that is far too modest: the research is of breathtaking breadth, such as only a polymath intellectual like Adler could muster.
Adler phrases his title advisedly, precisely in the way he poses the problem. By focusing on the "difference" of man from non-man, he shows that the question at issue is of the sort that cannot be answered by any single discipline. Traditionally philosophy and theology have monopolized the subject of human nature; but neither philosophy or theology cannot presume to answer the question alone, as they cannot claim exclusive jurisdiction over the broad-ranging aspects of the question. Many facets of the question must be addressed by various special sciences, he shows, including biology, paleontology, neurology, psychology, and even computer science and research in artificial intelligence. But then, none of these special sciences is competent to reflect with epistemological self-consciousness upon their own first principles. That requires a philosophical mind, if not one versed also in matters of theology.
It is the single, most level-headed and most thoroughly researched discussion of the question I have seen. Highly recommended.
[Oh, then again, Adler is so gauche as to use the word "MAN" in his title. So what could he possibly know?]
Of related interest
- Mortimer J. Adler, Intellect: Mind over Matter
Sunday, May 17, 2009
Weakland comes out of closet
Laurie Goodstein, "Ex-Archbishop Speaks About Catholic Church and Homosexuality" (New York Times, May 14, 2009).
Is this repentance? What part of this is redeemable? And, I'm sad to say, a very low point for the William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, cashing in on unprincipled prurience.
Is this repentance? What part of this is redeemable? And, I'm sad to say, a very low point for the William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, cashing in on unprincipled prurience.
End of Christian America?
Where's the smart money on this? Jon Meacham, whom Hunter Baker calls "the new Harvey Cox" (remembered for his book The Secular City), wrote a piece called "The End of Christian America" (Newsweek, April 4, 2009).
Hunter Baker, in "End Times for Christian America?" (Acton Commentary, May 13, 2009), responds by saying that "the meme will make for good newsprint," but is "severely premature."
[Hat tip to E.E.]
Hunter Baker, in "End Times for Christian America?" (Acton Commentary, May 13, 2009), responds by saying that "the meme will make for good newsprint," but is "severely premature."
“Christianity is important in America!” is no more a story than “dog bites man.” “The death of Christianity,” on the other hand, grabs eyeballs....Well put.
The wise observer will be more cautious. It was less than five years ago that Garry Wills, flustered by the re-election of George W. Bush, wrote histrionically for The New York Times about “The Day the Enlightenment Went Out.”
... The smart money is on Christianity to be around and relevant for as long as the American republic endures. The even smarter money says the faith will outlast the republic just as it did the empire into which it was born.
[Hat tip to E.E.]
The end is surely near
From the "Buddy Christ" to, now, this: "'Jesus in jeans' sculpture unveiled" (Telegraph.co.uk, May 13, 2009).
[Hat tip to N.B.]
[Hat tip to N.B.]
Do we deserve these leaders?
If it's true that a democracy gets the leaders it deserves, this is downright embarrassing.
U.S. Pres throws Israel under the bus
Puts country on collision course with Israel. Why is this all as predictable as a Hollywood script?
[Hat tip to S.K.]
[Hat tip to S.K.]
From our allies at Westminster
I was pleasantly surprised to hear about the contribution being made in the culture wars by my alma mater, Westminster Theological Seminary, via the post by Carlos Antonio Palad, "The Truth about Angels and Demons: A Short Review" (Rorate Caeli, May 14, 2009):
[Hat tip to J.M. for the notice, and Mr. Palad for the Rorate Caeli post]The Westminster Theological Seminary, a very conservative seminary in the the Reformed-Presbyterian (Calvinist) tradition, has just launched The Truth About Angels and Demons. This website is dedicated to educating people about the misinformation -- both on scientific matters and on Catholic institutions -- in that novel and the film based on it. This continues the said seminary's fight against Mr. Brown's "novels" that was begun with its site on the Da Vinci Code.
While written from a Protestant perspective and thus bearing traces of Protestant errors, this website is not anti-Catholic. Noteworthy is the account on Galileo, which records that he was opposed by “traditionalists” (not, of course, the Traditionalists of today) instead of repeating the usual line – so beloved by Evangelical and secularist apologists alike -- that he was opposed by the “Catholic Church.” The page on the differences between Catholicism and Protestantism is respectful, despite some factual errors there and in other parts of the website ([the Council of] Ephesus was not about Pelagianism but about the Theotokos, and the cardinals are no longer bound to elect a pope within ten days of the decease of the last one).
In asserting that Protestantism is in agreement with Catholicism in accepting the contents of the first seven Ecumenical Councils (called “universal church councils” in the website), this Calvinist website says something usually heard only in the more “Catholic” wings of the Lutheran and Anglican communities, and then not even in the name of Protestantism as a whole. The statement that “most” Protestants accept the teaching of Nicaea II (which defended the veneration of icons) is not what one would one expect from the Calvinist side; it is in fact a wildly optimistic statement, albeit pleasant to read. I happily note the admission that the veneration of icons is not worship – a distinction all too often lost on many (if not most) Protestant communities.
The Catholic Church has taken the approach of being dismissive of Angels and Demons, and there is much to be said for this tactic. Nevertheless, the fact that too many souls have been (and are being) led astray by Dan Brown’s literary fantasies cannot be ignored. Inspite of the flaws in this project, it is good to see a thoroughly Protestant institution taking the initiative to defend Catholic institutions against the new wave of disinformation about to be released by “Angels and Demons,”’ and it is equally good that this project is being carried out in a way that reveals some openness to Catholic truth.
These steps nearer to the truth need to be seen and encouraged, hence this note in Rorate.
Anti-abortion as the Catholic marker?
Most of us understand the Catholic Faith as something eminently positive. It is not something defined primarily by what it is against, but by what it promotes: Christ and His teaching. Yet one of our correspondents has raised a serious and interesting question concerning whether this is truly the case in our public life, and what that might mean:
Of related interest:
I have often been struck by the fact that the ONLY thing that really unifies conservative Catholics, the only thing on which there is holy indignation, is a negative: abortion.[Hat tip to J.M.]
Now this from Joseph Bottum, "Catholic Culture and the Notre Dame Protests" (First Things, May 15, 2009):... the whole mess at Notre Dame reveals itself as a fight over Catholic culture. The protesters are certainly a minority among self-identified Catholics, but they are also the wire through which the most current is flowing in American Catholicism today. “Opposition to abortion doesn’t stand at the center of Catholic theology. It doesn’t even stand at the center of Catholic faith,” I noted in the Weekly Standard. Still, at the current moment, “Opposition to abortion is the signpost at the intersection of Catholicism and American public life.”
Should it be so? Catholic theology would be peculiar if it had at its root a negation rather than an affirmation. Catholic faith would be unreal if at its deepest heart lay opposition to abortion rather than embrace of Jesus Christ. You don’t have to travel far in theology or faith to arrive at knowledge of the absolute evil of abortion, but neither theology nor faith properly begin there.
Still, Catholic culture—and the Catholic intersection with the princes and powers of earth—must always be adversarial in some ways. We have in this world no perfect home, and if right now the adversarial element is expressing itself most forcefully in opposition to abortion, then the culture of the faithful is manifesting something that deserves respect—something that deserves agreement.
To this kind of claim, my friend, the conservative Georgetown professor Patrick Deneen,recently responded, “The singular focus upon abortion as the issue over which conservative Catholics will brook no divergence and around which we are called to rally reveals, to my mind, not evidence of robust Catholic culture as much as its absence.”
That’s right—and yet, it isn’t. The key word here is robust. I’ve been fascinated recently by the odd and interesting ways in which, it appears to me, an attempt is being made to use homeschooling as a replacement for the devices that used to transmit Catholic culture, among those most hungry for the existence of such a culture. What will come of that is hard to say.
Still, for the moment, at least, opposition to abortion remains the clear marker of the public presence of what Catholic culture exists. And as I wrote in “When the Swallows Come Back to Capistrano”:For the development of a new Catholicism, this doesn’t look the most-promising start. Rich local cultures may produce great works, but few people in the United States have that kind of cultural wealth anymore. Certainly not many Catholics. The number of Americans who grew up in a profoundly Catholic setting is smaller than it ever has been before—which creates a problem for a new culture. If Catholicism is something elected rather than received, can Catholics achieve what earlier cultures did?A robust Catholic culture? No, not yet. Not by a long shot. But the people who are upset by Notre Dame’s honoring of a strong supporter of legalized abortion—they’re serious, and they’re on the ground, and they’re deeply moved by a genuinely Catholic principle, and they’re what we have.
Their children, perhaps, will come from a thick-enough world that they can write the kind of strong Catholic novels, make the kind of strong Catholic art, prior ages knew. But in the meantime, a rebellion against rebellion doesn’t escape the problems of rebellion, and a chosen tradition is never quite the same as an inherited one.
Besides, they’re right.
Of related interest:
Obamanation Day
- Catholics Who Back Obama's Visit Raise Voices With Newspaper Ad (US News & World Report, May 14, 2009)
- US Catholic activists demand removal of "anti-Catholic" Obama adviser (Catholic Culture, May 13, 2009).
- D'Arcy Opposes Terry's 'Circus' (NCRegister.com, May 15, 2009).
- Obama to Acknowledge Controversy in Notre Dame Remarks (Politics, May 15, 2009).
- Poll: Most Americans 'pro-life' for First Time Since Polling Began (Political Intelligence, May 15, 2009).
- Blogging Notre Dame's Commencement (American Papist, May 17, 2009).
- This University's religion is in vain (Rorate Caeli, May 17, 2009).
De Deféctibus – Part 4 of 4
Tridentine Community News (May 17, 2009):
We conclude our presentation of the 1962 Roman Missal instruction, De Deféctibus (On Defects Occurring in the Celebration of Mass), which displays the Church’s concern for the Blessed Sacrament and the validity of the Eucharist that the faithful may receive.[Comments? Please e-mail tridnews@stjosaphatchurch.org. Previous columns are available at www.stjosaphatchurch.org. This edition of Tridentine Community News, with minor editions, is from the St. Josaphat bulletin insert for May 17, 2009. Hat tip to A.B.]
X. Defects Occurring in the Celebration of the Rite Itself (con’t.)
41. If the Blood freezes in the chalice in winter time, the chalice should be wrapped in cloths that have been warmed. If this is not enough, it should be placed in boiling water near the altar until the Blood melts, but care should be taken that none of the water gets into the chalice.
42. If any of the Blood of Christ falls, if it is only a drop or so, nothing need be done except to pour a little water over the spilled drops and dry it afterwards with a purificator. If more has been spilled, the corporal or the altar cloth or other place is to be washed in the best way possible, and the water is then to be poured into the sacrarium.
43. If, however, all the Blood is spilled after the Consecration, the little that remains is to be consumed, and the procedure described above is to be followed with the rest which has been spilled. But if none at all remains, the priest is to put wine and water into the chalice again and consecrate from the words Símili modo, postquam cenátum est, etc., after first making an offering of the chalice, as above.
44. If anyone vomits the Eucharist, the vomit is to be gathered up and disposed of in some decent place.
45. If a consecrated Host or any Particle of it falls to the ground or floor, it is to be taken up reverently, a little water is to be poured over the place where it fell, and the place is to be dried with a purificator. If it falls on clothing, the clothing need not be washed. If it falls on a woman's clothing, the woman herself is to take the Particle and consume it.
46. Defects may occur in the celebration of the rite itself also if the priest does not know the rites and ceremonies to be observed, all of which have been fully described in the above rubrics.
Commentary – Is All of This Really Necessary?
Some might claim that this is the liturgical equivalent of a nun’s slap of the ruler on a student’s knuckles. But let us consider that the Ordinary Form Missal does not have an equivalent preamble. It only contains the General Instructions of the Roman Missal, equivalent to the Rubrics of the Roman Missal. The only formal instructions are positive (what one must do), not negative (what one must not do).
In his book, Liturgical Question Box, Bishop Peter Elliott addresses the lack of such a section by citing and reapplying the original points in De Deféctibus to the modern realities and requirements of the Ordinary Form Mass. For example, he states that when there are additional vessels to be consecrated when the Precious Blood is to be distributed to the faithful at Mass, the requirement to have all of the vessels on the corporal on the altar in order to be validly consecrated no longer makes sense. Simply to have the vessels on the altar, and for the celebrant to have the intention to consecrate them, is sufficient for a valid consecration. This is indeed logical; after all, a corporal should not have the dimensions of a towel.
The trouble with such a proposition is that while Bishop Elliott is without a doubt one of the top living scholars of the rubrics of the Ordinary Form of Mass, he speaks with no authority other than his own scholarship. He is speculating as to what the Church intends, no matter how logically. For such an important topic as the rubrics of Holy Mass, it is peculiar that clearer official guidelines have simply disappeared in the new Missal.
Fortunately, De Deféctibus is still in force for the Extraordinary Form of Holy Mass. If you don’t identify the potential problems, how can you correct them? We might find certain examples to sound dated, but standards for the Sacred Liturgy do need to be set. What’s worse, chuckling over the absurdity of how unlikely some of the circumstances mentioned in De Deféctibus are to occur, or being presented with potentially invalid matter at Holy Communion?
Proof of the Existence of Particles of the Host
On a recent day, the sun was so bright that one could see dust floating in the air. This, coupled with some recent discussion on a liturgical blog, inspired an experiment. Your author took an unconsecrated priest’s host, and under the sun’s bright rays, against a black background, broke the host in two just as the priest does before Holy Communion. The bright sunlight revealed a shower of tiny, dust-sized particles emanating from the host.
When we empty a bag of new, unconsecrated hosts into a ciborium before Mass, there are almost always crumbs and broken hosts in the bag. Think about the last time you opened a large box of cookies – weren’t one or two a little crumbly? It is therefore within reason to think that as Holy Communion is being distributed to the faithful from a ciborium, a crumb may fall when a particular Host is lifted out of the ciborium.
While we don’t advocate a hyperbaric chamber around the celebrant of Holy Mass or similar impractical extremes, we do believe that this experiment provides yet more evidence of the benefit of distribution of Holy Communion on the tongue, accompanied by a server holding a paten. It’s simply responsible: it’s the liturgical equivalent of swabbing alcohol on the spot where a nurse is going to draw blood. In the latter case germs, and in the former case Particles of our Lord, will still be there, whether we see them or not, or acknowledge them or not. Fortunately, the Extraordinary Form of Holy Mass strives to avoid accidental sacrilege via its prescriptions for careful handling of the Blessed Sacrament at all points in the liturgy.
Friday, May 15, 2009
On "respecting" unChristian religions
A reader recently wrote saying that he does not think any convincing book has yet been written that synthesizes or expounds Dominus Iesus thoroughly and in connection with modern challenges. He says he assumes that this is either because of fuzzy thinking or because those who might be concerned may be afraid that their more conservative take could be rebuffed by Rome, or both. In the meantime, a Baptist sends a couple of lumps toward the Vatican. Be forewarned: he is both unfair and wrong on several counts. Yet given the Middle Eastern geo-politics of the past decade or more, his remarks provoke some worthy questions: Albert Mohler, "R-E-S-P-E-C-T: Should Christians 'Respect' Other Religions?" (Crosswalk.com, May 14, 2009):
The world we now know is marked by religious pluralism and the clash of worldviews. The modern world brings individuals and groups of different belief systems into both proximity and potential conflict. How should Christians respond when asked about this? Should Christians "respect" other religions?[Hat tip to J.M.; and to the Kraghs for the memories of "UnChristian Religions 101"]
Headlines throughout the world announced this week that Pope Benedict XVI, while visiting Jordan, spoke of his "respect" for Islam. This came on the heels of the Pope's notorious 2006 speech at Germany's Regensburg University. In that speech Benedict quoted Emperor Manuel II, one of the Byzantine monarchs, who said: "Show me just what Muhammad 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 outrage throughout the Muslim world was immediate and overwhelming. The Pope issued clarifications and explanations, but Muslim outrage continued. This week, with the Pope scheduled to make his first papal visit to an Islamic country, the sensitivities were high.
The Vatican's official transcript of the Pope's comments at the Amman airport records him as saying:My visit to Jordan gives me a welcome opportunity to speak of my deep respect for the Muslim community, and to pay tribute to the leadership shown by His Majesty the King in promoting a better understanding of the virtues proclaimed by Islam.There are so many different angles to this situation. First, we have the spectacle of a Pope being received as a head of state. This is wrong on so many counts. Second, we have the Pope speaking in diplomatic jargon, rather than in plain and direct speech. Third, we have the Pope speaking of "respect" without any clear understanding of what this really means. Does the Pope believe that Muslims can be saved through the teachings of Islam?
Actually, he probably does -- at least within the context of a salvific inclusivism. The Roman Catholic Church officially teaches that Muslims are "included in the plan of salvation" by virtue of their claim to "hold the faith of Abraham."
In the words of Lumen Gentium, one of the major documents adopted at Vatican II:But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator. In the first place amongst these there are the Mohamedans, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind.The same language is basic to the current official catechism of the church as well. Within the context of the document, this language clearly implies that Muslims are within the scope of God's salvation. While the Roman Catholic Church teaches that Islam is both erroneous and incomplete, it also holds that sincere Muslims can be included in Christ's salvation through their faithfulness to monotheism and Islam.
Thus, when the Catholic Pope speaks of "respecting" Islam, he can do so in a way that evangelical Christians cannot. Within the context of official Catholic teaching, the Pope can create a fusion of diplomacy and doctrine.
While evangelical Christians face a different context to this question, the urgency is the same. We are not playing a diplomatic role as head of state, but we are called to be ambassadors for Christ and his Gospel.
In this light, any belief system that pulls persons away from the Gospel of Christ, denies and subverts Christian truth, and blinds sinners from seeing Christ as the only hope of salvation is, by biblical definition, a way that leads to destruction. Islam, like every other rival to the Christian gospel, takes persons captive and is devoid of genuine hope for salvation.
Thus, evangelical Christians may respect the sincerity with which Muslims hold their beliefs, but we cannot respect the beliefs themselves. We can respect Muslim people for their contributions to human welfare, scholarship, and culture. We can respect the brilliance of Muslim scholarship in the medieval era and the wonders of Islamic art and architecture. But we cannot respect a belief system that denies the truth of the gospel, insists that Jesus was not God's Son, and takes millions of souls captive.
This does not make for good diplomacy, but we are called to witness, not public relations. We must aim to be gracious and winsome in our witness to Christ, but the bottom line is that the gospel will necessarily come into open conflict with its rivals.
The papal visit to Jordan points directly to the problem of the papacy itself and to the confusion of Roman Catholic theology on this very point. To understand Islam is to know that we cannot identify Muslims as those who "along with us adore the one and merciful God." To deny the Trinity is to worship another God.
Respect is a problematic category. In the end, Christians must show respect for Muslims by sharing the Gospel of Jesus Christ in the spirit of love and truth. We are called to love and respect Muslims, not Islam.
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
Most detailed coverage of Pope's Holy Land visit
For probably the most detailed coverage of the Pope's visit to Jordan and Israel, check out the hour-by-hour account, tracking reactions and observations from every quarter, found at http://benedictinisrael.blogspot.com/.
25th anniversary of Schaeffer's death: interview
May 15th will be the 25th anniversary of the death of Francis Schaeffer. Justin Taylor, "An Interview with Os Guinness on the 25th Anniversary of Francis Schaeffer's Death" (Between Two Worlds, May 7, 2009), interviews Os Guinness. Excerpts:
I had the privilege of living with Francis and Edith Schaeffer for three years in their home, so I came to know them both very well. To be honest, I adored Edith and have never met a woman like her. I can’t say quite the same about Francis, and I have my differences with him. But I also owe the world to him, and he has influenced me profoundly even where I differ from him.... Schaeffer has influenced me more in an unspoken way. I often say simply that I have never met anyone with such a passion for God, combined with a passion for people, combined with a passion for truth. That is an extremely rare combination, and Schaeffer embodied it. It is also why so many of his scholarly critics completely miss the heart of who he was, and why his son’s recent portrayal of his father is such a travesty and an outrage.[Hat tip to J.M.]
... Of all his own books, Francis Schaeffer’s favorite was True Spirituality. It tells the story of his passionate, even desperate, search for reality in faith. But that was what was so great about him. There was no gap between his trust in God, his praying, his wrestling with issues, his lectures, his preaching, his love of the mountains, his sense of fun, his appreciation of beauty, and so on. With all his flaws, he was a very real man.
... At the same time, although he was a brilliant thinker, with an uncanny ability to connect the dots and see the significance of things, he was not a scholar and he relied too much on reading magazines rather than books.
... Many who cite his apologetic approach have a comically wooden understanding of how he approached people to win them to faith. I have yet to see the book that does justice to the sheer brilliance of his way of presenting the gospel.
Craig spanks Hitchens, warmly received in Turkey
William Lane Craig debated the famous "new atheist," Christopher Hitchens, at Biola University in April. "Hitchens Debate at Biola" (Reasonable Faith Newsletter, May 2009):
[Hat tip to E.E.]
The debate on April 4 was the largest ticketed event ever held at Biola University. The gymnasium where the debate was held was stunningly illuminated with a bright blue backdrop and equipped with a giant screen and packed with 4,000 people. High-definition television cables linked the gym to every other auditorium on campus. The debate was webcast live (as well as on delayed feeds) to 35 other states and even to four foreign countries! Bloggers in the gym were providing live, blow-by-blow coverage to people across the internet.A little over a week later, Craig flew to Turkey where he was invited to speak, among other venues, to a closed session of the faculty and grad students of the Theology Department at the University of Ankara on "The Coherence of the Christian Doctrine of the Incarnation," and received throughout his speaking tour with amazing warmth and gratitude. After his Ankara presentation, he reports, 'one of the professors shook my hand and said with a big smile, “You are a better practitioner of kalam than our philosophers!'” ("Speaking Trip to Turkey," Reasonable Faith newsletter, May 2009).
... Hitchens showed himself utterly incapable of interacting with the [philosophical] arguments in a substantive way. By his third speech he had reverted to his usual railing against God as a North Korean dictator who robs us of our freedom....
The reaction in the blogosphere was immediate and unanimous. Hitchens was uniformly denounced for his empty rhetoric and posturing and his failure to interact with the arguments. One atheist blogger summed it up: “Hitchens was rambling and incoherent, with the occasional rhetorical jab. Frankly, Craig spanked Hitchens like a foolish child.”
[Hat tip to E.E.]
Monday, May 11, 2009
A theology of the body too far?
"Catholicism, properly understood ... is one of the sexiest of the world's religions." (Ignatius Insight Scoop, May 7, 2009)
That from Christopher West, who is described as a "sex sermonist" in a profile from ABC News:
Waldstein's new translation of John Paul II's Theology of the Body -- Man and Woman He Created Them: A Theology Of The Body (Pauline Books & Media, 2006) -- has been called "magisterial" by Thomas Howard, and I think Waldstein's Introduction, covering the various influences on John Paul (St. John of the Cross, Immanuel Kant, Max Scheler, etc.) is first-rate.
But a "Theology of the Body" Institute? I'll have to think about that one.
While we're at it, the Calloway's title suggests a question one of our readers raised, so I'll pass it on to you: What Marian books would you recommend as the best coverage of this area theologically?
Of related interest
That from Christopher West, who is described as a "sex sermonist" in a profile from ABC News:
"I love Hugh Hefner," said West. "I really do. Why? Because I think I understand his ache. I think I understand his longing because I feel it myself. There is this yearning, this ache, this longing we all have for love, for union, for intimacy."One reader points out that a sub-literature is even cropping up: Amazon.com: The Virgin Mary And Theology of the Body: Donald H. Calloway: Books.
West said John Paul II took the sexual revolution an extra step, outlining what he called the "Theology of the Body." The pope emphasized how God made Adam and Eve naked and without shame, in his own image. And told them to be fruitful and multiply.
In other words, according to the pope, from the very beginning, sexual love has been at the heart of God's plan for us.
"Catholicism, properly understood ... is one of the sexiest of the world's religions," said West. "But what do we mean by that statement? Catholicism is a very physical, very sensual religion. And indeed the authentic soundtrack for Christianity is a small book in the Old Testament called the Song of Songs. And what is it? It is glorious erotic love poetry."
Waldstein's new translation of John Paul II's Theology of the Body -- Man and Woman He Created Them: A Theology Of The Body
(Pauline Books & Media, 2006) -- has been called "magisterial" by Thomas Howard, and I think Waldstein's Introduction, covering the various influences on John Paul (St. John of the Cross, Immanuel Kant, Max Scheler, etc.) is first-rate. But a "Theology of the Body" Institute? I'll have to think about that one.
While we're at it, the Calloway's title suggests a question one of our readers raised, so I'll pass it on to you: What Marian books would you recommend as the best coverage of this area theologically?
Of related interest
- Jimmy Akin's take on the issue (JimmyAkin.org, May14, 2009), showing how ABC edited out crucial context from West's piece.
- David L. Schindler, "Christopher West's Theology of the Body" (Headline Bistro, May 22, 2009).
New world order
Remake religion? Remake Christianity? "Obama and Blair. Messianism reinterpreted," an article by Michel Schooyans. Scary. "Angel or Demon? In the Vatican, Obama Is Both" (Sandro Magister, www.Chiesa, May 8, 2009): "L'Osservatore Romano" praises him. Two prominent scholars of the pontifical academy of social sciences rail against him. The complete text of the accusation, signed by Michel Schooyans in conjunction with the archbishop of Dijon, Roland Minnerath."
Sunday, May 10, 2009
De Deféctibus – Part 3 of 4
Tridentine Community News (May 10, 2009):
We continue our presentation of the 1962 Roman Missal instruction, De Deféctibus (On Defects Occurring in the Celebration of Mass), which displays the Church’s concern for the Blessed Sacrament and the validity of the Eucharist that the faithful may receive.[Comments? Please e-mail tridnews@stjosaphatchurch.org. Previous columns are available at www.stjosaphatchurch.org. This edition of Tridentine Community News, with minor editions, is from the St. Josaphat bulletin insert for May 10, 2009. Hat tip to A.B.]
IX. Defects of the Disposition of Body (con’t.)
30. Priests who can do so are earnestly invited to observe the ancient and venerable form of the Eucharistic fast before Mass.
X. Defects Occurring in the Celebration of the Rite Itself
31. Defects may occur also in the performance of the rite itself, if any of the required elements is lacking, as in the following cases: if the Mass is celebrated in a place that is not sacred, or not lawfully approved, or on an altar not consecrated, or not covered with three cloths; if there are no wax candles; if it is not the proper time for celebrating Mass, which is from one hour before dawn until one hour after noon under ordinary circumstances, unless some other time is established or permitted for certain Masses; if the priest fails to wear some one of the priestly vestments; if the priestly vestments and the altar cloths have not been blessed; if there is no cleric present nor any other man or boy serving the Mass; if there is not a chalice, with a cup of gold, or of silver with the inside gold-plated; if the paten is not gold-plated; if both chalice and paten are not consecrated by a bishop; if the corporal is not clean (and the corporal should be of linen, not decorated in the middle with silk or gold; and both corporal and pall should be blessed); if the priest celebrates Mass with his head covered, without a dispensation to do so; if there is no missal present, even though the priest may know by heart the Mass he intends to say.
32. If, while the priest is celebrating Mass, the church is violated before he has reached the Canon, the Mass is to be discontinued; if after the Canon, it is not to be discontinued. If there is fear of an attack by enemies, or of a flood or of the collapse of the building where the Mass is being celebrated, the Mass is to be discontinued if it is before the Consecration; if this fear arises after the Consecration, however, the priest may omit everything else and go on at once to the reception of the Sacrament.
33. If before the Consecration the priest becomes seriously ill, or faints, or dies, the Mass is discontinued. If this happens after the consecration of the Body only and before the consecration of the Blood, or after both have been consecrated, the Mass is to be completed by another priest from the place where the first priest stopped, and in case of necessity even by a priest who is not fasting. If the first priest has not died but has become ill and is still able to receive Communion, and there is no other consecrated Host at hand, the priest who is completing the Mass should divide the Host, give one part to the sick priest and consume the other part himself. If the priest has died after half-saying the formula for the consecration of the Body, then there is no Consecration and no need for another priest to complete the Mass. If, on the other hand, the priest has died after half-saying the formula for the consecration of the Blood, then another priest is to complete the Mass, repeating the whole formula over the same chalice from the words Símili modo, postquam cenátum est; or he may say the whole formula over another chalice which has been prepared, and consume the first priest's Host and the Blood consecrated by himself, and then the chalice which was left half-consecrated.
34. If anyone fails to consume the whole Sacrament aside from cases of necessity of this kind, he is guilty of very grave sin.
35. If before the Consecration a fly or spider or anything else falls into the chalice, the priest is to pour out the wine in a suitable place, put other wine into the chalice, add a little water, offer it, as above, and continue the Mass. If after the Consecration a fly or something of the kind falls into the chalice, he is to take it out, wash it with wine, burn it after the Mass is over, and throw the ashes and the wine which was used for washing into the sacrarium.
36. If something poisonous falls into the chalice after the Consecration, or something that would cause vomiting, the consecrated wine is to be poured into another chalice, with water added until the chalice is full, so that the species of wine will be dissolved; and this water is to be poured out into the sacrarium. Other wine, together with water, is to be brought and consecrated.
37. If anything poisonous touches the consecrated Host, the priest is to consecrate another and consume it in the way that has been explained, while the first Host is to be put into a chalice full of water and disposed of as was explained regarding the Blood in paragraph 36 above.
38. If the Particle of the Host remains in the chalice when he consumes the Blood, he is to bring it to the edge of the cup with his finger and consume it before the purification, or else he is to pour water in and consume it with the water.
39. If before the Consecration the host is found to be broken, it is to be consecrated anyway, unless the people can see plainly that it is broken. But if there may be scandal for the people, another host is to be taken and offered. If the broken host has already been offered, the priest is to consume it after the ablution. If the host is seen to be broken before the offerings however, another complete host is to be taken, if this can be done without scandal and without a long delay.
40. If the consecrated Host falls into the chalice, nothing is to be repeated on that account, but the priest is to continue the Mass, performing the ceremonies and making the usual signs of the Cross with the part of the Host that is not moistened with the Blood, if he can conveniently do so. But if the entire Host has become wet, he is not to take it out; he is to say everything as usual, omitting the signs of the Cross that pertain to the Host alone, and he is to consume the Body and the Blood together, signing himself with the chalice and saying: Corpus et Sánguis Dómini nostri, etc.
Friday, May 08, 2009
Revisiting the AmChurch Novus Ordo
After more than a year of assisting exclusively at Extraordinary Form Masses on Sundays, a Mass I have come to love, I had two occasions last summer to revisit the Roman Rite in its Ordinary Form in a large suburban Catholic parish -- the same parish on both occasions, both Sundays. The following are my observations.
I begin with the positive. The church operates a Catholic school. Together they form a large, sprawling physical plant. The Masses are well attended. When you walk into the church, you are greeted by holy water fonts at the entrance, a prominently displayed crucifix above the altar, candles, an identifiable Tabernacle, baptismal font, and pews with kneelers. The pews quickly fill as the opening hymn begins. There are families and individuals of all ages, and many children, from toddlers to teens. The choir is large and reasonably well-trained, and lodged in a loft at the rear of the church. The priest processes in behind a crucifer, two servers, and a lector, kisses the altar and begins Mass straightaway with the Sign of the Cross. There are no clowns. There are no bongos, no electric guitars. There is no dancing in the aisles. The homily is recognizably Christian and notably earnest and sincere in tone; and the people visibly like their priest.
I proceed, next, not to the negative, but to the ambiguous. One question that keeps recurring to me is this: What about this religious rite and ritual would be recognizably Catholic to someone who didn't know what it was beforehand? There is no question about its being Christian. Yet many of these things -- the crucifix, the procession, the altar, the candles, the Nicene Creed, the kneeling, the filing up to receive communion -- I have seen in Episcopal, Lutheran, and even Presbyterian churches.
First of all, the acts of genuflecting and overt references to "sacrifice" ("Pray, my brothers and sisters, that our sacrifice ...") would narrow it down to either a Catholic or Episcopal (Anglican) liturgy, since the Episcopalians also genuflect and the Episcopal liturgy also refers obliquely to "sacrifice" ("... a full, perfect, and sufficient sacrifice, oblation, and satisfaction, for the sins of the whole world"), and there is no way this spartan rite could possibly be taken for Eastern Orthodox.
Second, the only external signs by which this event could be decisively identified as Catholic, apart from the overt references to things Catholic in the homily, it seems to me, are the references to the Pope and local bishop in the Eucharistic Prayers, and the visible presence of the Tabernacle with the reserved Sacrament. These one would not generally find anywhere but in a Catholic church.
I proceed, finally, to the negative. If nothing else identified this place and this event as recognizably Catholic to someone already familiar with contemporary American Catholicism, all doubt would be banished by the withering ugliness of the architecture, the sloppiness of dress, the sheer shabbiness of the half-improvised liturgical form, the hideous banality of hymns, the utter lack of decorum and unmistakable note of tawdry casual chumminess struck throughout the event. For better or worse, this is what the vast majority of contemporary Catholics call home.
During the entrance procession, the priest stops to shake hands and talk with people along the aisle several times en route to the altar, patting a couple of backs. Crucifer and servers slouch down the aisle in sneakers and jeans, vested in what look like Halloween costume sheets wrapped around them. Some people show up in what looks like beach attire. Several little kids run around the aisles throughout the liturgy. During the hymns, the choir sings the usual hidebound Haugen and Haas offerings, but virtually no one in the congregation sings. Participation seems to mean showing up and sitting back, like a casual spectator.
During the Presentation of the Gifts, those who bring up the gifts join with the priest in saying his prayers over the gifts: "... It will become for us the bread of life. ... It will become our spiritual drink," before returning to their pews. The priest seems to have an allergy against using masculine pronouns, even for God. One hears the politicized response: "Let us give God [not 'Him'] thanks and praise." As he says, "Take this, all of you, and drink from it," the priest lifts the cup (Could this be called a "chalice"?) and gestures with it, holding it out to each side of the congregation expressively, punctuating his words with dramatic pauses and modulating his voice for emphasis. We see him looking out over the congregation. He looks at us. We look at him. The focus is clearly on we who are gathered here and what he is doing for us. If there is any doubt about this, it vanishes in the forest of joined sweaty palms during the Our Father, and cacophony that erupts, recess-like, during the Rite of Peace, the presider himself walking down the aisle, presiding over the shaking of hands all around.
Momentarily, the priest is surrounded by no less than eleven Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion, looking for all the world like an out-of-place gentleman in a kitchen full of women. People soon begin shuffling forward (or to the back of the church, depending on where they are seated), to receive Communion. How does one receive here? Of course we have been reminded by Rome that we have the liturgical right to kneel; but where does one kneel here, amidst this confusion of milling people and Eucharistic Ministers? Nobody kneels, and neither do I. What's the point? Do I want to call attention to myself or make a political statement? I just want to receive Jesus. I already feel compromised by being here. I feel disappointed in myself and by the whole experience.
About one fourth of the congregation leaves for the parking lot right after Communion. Maybe half remain until the last verse of the recessional hymn. The words of Martin Mosebach come to mind: "I go to church to see God and come away like a theater critic." Throughout the Mass I find that my focus is constantly diverted. Like Mosebach, I just want to "see God." I want to witness the Sacrifice of Christ, and to receive Him. Yet in countless ways, the elements of the Mass conspire to divert my attention away from Him, and towards incidentals -- towards those who walk into their pews without genuflecting, towards those wearing what looks like beach attire, toward the chummy bonhomie of the pastor, toward his unusual gestures and voice modulations, towards the politicized gender-bending of words, toward the Eucharistic Minister who doesn't seem to know what to do with my mouth open and tongue stuck out at her, toward the unseemly distasteful clutteredness of it all.
Yes, I know, Jesus is here too, just as he was in the stable surrounded by the braying of asses and smelly droppings of cows and goats. Yet I wonder: would it have been harder to find Him and worship Him there than here? Is this the best we can do? For the Lord of Heaven, our Maker and Redeemer?
Of related interest
I begin with the positive. The church operates a Catholic school. Together they form a large, sprawling physical plant. The Masses are well attended. When you walk into the church, you are greeted by holy water fonts at the entrance, a prominently displayed crucifix above the altar, candles, an identifiable Tabernacle, baptismal font, and pews with kneelers. The pews quickly fill as the opening hymn begins. There are families and individuals of all ages, and many children, from toddlers to teens. The choir is large and reasonably well-trained, and lodged in a loft at the rear of the church. The priest processes in behind a crucifer, two servers, and a lector, kisses the altar and begins Mass straightaway with the Sign of the Cross. There are no clowns. There are no bongos, no electric guitars. There is no dancing in the aisles. The homily is recognizably Christian and notably earnest and sincere in tone; and the people visibly like their priest.
I proceed, next, not to the negative, but to the ambiguous. One question that keeps recurring to me is this: What about this religious rite and ritual would be recognizably Catholic to someone who didn't know what it was beforehand? There is no question about its being Christian. Yet many of these things -- the crucifix, the procession, the altar, the candles, the Nicene Creed, the kneeling, the filing up to receive communion -- I have seen in Episcopal, Lutheran, and even Presbyterian churches.
First of all, the acts of genuflecting and overt references to "sacrifice" ("Pray, my brothers and sisters, that our sacrifice ...") would narrow it down to either a Catholic or Episcopal (Anglican) liturgy, since the Episcopalians also genuflect and the Episcopal liturgy also refers obliquely to "sacrifice" ("... a full, perfect, and sufficient sacrifice, oblation, and satisfaction, for the sins of the whole world"), and there is no way this spartan rite could possibly be taken for Eastern Orthodox.
Second, the only external signs by which this event could be decisively identified as Catholic, apart from the overt references to things Catholic in the homily, it seems to me, are the references to the Pope and local bishop in the Eucharistic Prayers, and the visible presence of the Tabernacle with the reserved Sacrament. These one would not generally find anywhere but in a Catholic church.
I proceed, finally, to the negative. If nothing else identified this place and this event as recognizably Catholic to someone already familiar with contemporary American Catholicism, all doubt would be banished by the withering ugliness of the architecture, the sloppiness of dress, the sheer shabbiness of the half-improvised liturgical form, the hideous banality of hymns, the utter lack of decorum and unmistakable note of tawdry casual chumminess struck throughout the event. For better or worse, this is what the vast majority of contemporary Catholics call home.
During the entrance procession, the priest stops to shake hands and talk with people along the aisle several times en route to the altar, patting a couple of backs. Crucifer and servers slouch down the aisle in sneakers and jeans, vested in what look like Halloween costume sheets wrapped around them. Some people show up in what looks like beach attire. Several little kids run around the aisles throughout the liturgy. During the hymns, the choir sings the usual hidebound Haugen and Haas offerings, but virtually no one in the congregation sings. Participation seems to mean showing up and sitting back, like a casual spectator.
During the Presentation of the Gifts, those who bring up the gifts join with the priest in saying his prayers over the gifts: "... It will become for us the bread of life. ... It will become our spiritual drink," before returning to their pews. The priest seems to have an allergy against using masculine pronouns, even for God. One hears the politicized response: "Let us give God [not 'Him'] thanks and praise." As he says, "Take this, all of you, and drink from it," the priest lifts the cup (Could this be called a "chalice"?) and gestures with it, holding it out to each side of the congregation expressively, punctuating his words with dramatic pauses and modulating his voice for emphasis. We see him looking out over the congregation. He looks at us. We look at him. The focus is clearly on we who are gathered here and what he is doing for us. If there is any doubt about this, it vanishes in the forest of joined sweaty palms during the Our Father, and cacophony that erupts, recess-like, during the Rite of Peace, the presider himself walking down the aisle, presiding over the shaking of hands all around.
Momentarily, the priest is surrounded by no less than eleven Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion, looking for all the world like an out-of-place gentleman in a kitchen full of women. People soon begin shuffling forward (or to the back of the church, depending on where they are seated), to receive Communion. How does one receive here? Of course we have been reminded by Rome that we have the liturgical right to kneel; but where does one kneel here, amidst this confusion of milling people and Eucharistic Ministers? Nobody kneels, and neither do I. What's the point? Do I want to call attention to myself or make a political statement? I just want to receive Jesus. I already feel compromised by being here. I feel disappointed in myself and by the whole experience.
About one fourth of the congregation leaves for the parking lot right after Communion. Maybe half remain until the last verse of the recessional hymn. The words of Martin Mosebach come to mind: "I go to church to see God and come away like a theater critic." Throughout the Mass I find that my focus is constantly diverted. Like Mosebach, I just want to "see God." I want to witness the Sacrifice of Christ, and to receive Him. Yet in countless ways, the elements of the Mass conspire to divert my attention away from Him, and towards incidentals -- towards those who walk into their pews without genuflecting, towards those wearing what looks like beach attire, toward the chummy bonhomie of the pastor, toward his unusual gestures and voice modulations, towards the politicized gender-bending of words, toward the Eucharistic Minister who doesn't seem to know what to do with my mouth open and tongue stuck out at her, toward the unseemly distasteful clutteredness of it all.
Yes, I know, Jesus is here too, just as he was in the stable surrounded by the braying of asses and smelly droppings of cows and goats. Yet I wonder: would it have been harder to find Him and worship Him there than here? Is this the best we can do? For the Lord of Heaven, our Maker and Redeemer?
Of related interest
- Martin Mosebach, Heresy of Formlessness
- Thomas Day, Why Catholics Can't Sing: The Culture of Catholicism and the Triumph of Bad Taste
- Pertinacious Papist, "And they don't even charge admission!" (Musings, January 18, 2009).
- Fr. John Zuhlsdorf's comments on this post (WDTPRS, May 11, 2009)
Thursday, May 07, 2009
Back to the future: Communion on the tongue
Card. Caffara of Bologna: in certain churches only Communion on the tongue (WDTPRS, May 7, 2009):
... His Eminence Carlo Card. Caffarra, Archbishop of Bologna, has made the decision ... wait for it ...Read the English translation of the communique from the Archdiocese of Bologna here.
... to require that in the certain great churches of Bologna Holy Communion will be distributed only on the tongue.I find this interesting and encouraging.
In a time when Pope Benedict distributes Communion only on the tongue….
In a time when liturgical leaders such as the Secretary of the CDW, Archbishop Ranjith, has written about Communion and the Holy See’s own publishing arm printed a book by Bishop Anastasius Schneider Dominis Est...
In a time when many American dioceses are hurrying to recommend that Communion shouldn’t be given on the tongue because of risk of disease…
... we read of this decision.
Archbishop Malcolm Ranjith's second exile
First exiled in 2004 when, as adjunct secretary of Propaganda Fide, he was suddenly nominated Nuncio to Indonesia by Pope John Paul II. Now, under mounting pressures against the formidable Secretary of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, it looks like Archbishop Malcolm Ranjith, will be going back to his native Sri Lanka, as Archbishop of Columbo, its capital city. See:
- The Scapegoat Rajnith to Columbo (Rorate Caeli, April 30, 2009)
- Rajnith to Columbo? Follow-up (Rorate Caeli, May 7, 2009),
Benedict in Israel: a preview
"The walls of the old City of Jerusalem from Mount Zion."
A preview of the Pope's pilgrimage to the Holy Land (May 6, 2009), by a longtime contributor to the Benedict Forum, who writes:
A pilgrimage to the Holy Land is a life-changing experience for those who believe in Christ. Even though the sites we revere today we may not be the precise spots mentioned in the Gospels, when you visit Galilee, Nazareth, Bethlehem, Jerusalem and other ancient places in modern-day Israel, the presence of Jesus , Mary and Joseph, the Apostles and the disciples -as well as the "villains" in the story of our salvation-becomes palpable. Galilee and Jerusalem, especially, make indelible impressions on the heart and soul.A preview of Pope Benedict XVI's pilgrimage to the Holy Land - photos and impressions from Yad Vashem; The Dome of the Rock; The Western ("Wailing") Wall; The Upper Room; The Mount of Olives, Gethsemane, Kidron Valley; Basilica of the Nativity, Nazareth and Church of the Holy Sepulchre.
When I first visited Israel I had only a point and shoot 36mm film camera. On my second, I had better digital equipment. In anticipation of Pope Benedict's visit, I thought I would share with the forum some of my impressions of the places where he is scheduled to go.
Less skin. More virtue. Not bad.
Saudis' "Miss Beautiful Morals" Pageant (CBS, May 7, 2009): No Swimsuit Competition At Saudi Arabia's Only Beauty Contest.
Babylon
Babylon Ruins Reopen in Iraq, to Controversy (NYT, May 2, 2009): great slide show of one of the most renown cities of ancient history, home of the Hanging Gardens of Babylon (one of the 'Seven Wonders of the World'), ancient capital of the Assyrians, Chaldeans, Persians, the city of Hammurabi, Nebuchadnezzar, Daniel, Cyrus, Darius, Alexander the Great ... Sadam Hussein. Wonder when they'll finally open a McDonalds and get civilized ...
Obama on National Day of Prayer
Obama plans a scaled back National Day of Prayer (AP, May 6, 2009): The man with no qualities on prayer: Sheesh! 'nuff o' that mumbo-jumbo: Who's got time for talkin' to the walls and ceiling when you could be out talkin' to real people with political clout (campaigning)!
Sunday, May 03, 2009
Contemporary culture and the question of sanity
There are those in our world who believe wholly, but they are a minority; they do not affect the atmosphere, only breathe it. There are militant atheists, they too a minority, but they do affect the atmosphere. For they strengthen its dominant characteristic--namely to conduct life without reference to God. Moral, social, political decisions, like personal decisions, are made as if God did not exist. It is a kind of practical godlessness, God in a cloud not of his own too much light, but of man's too small interest.--Frank Sheed, God and the Human Condition
There is no deliberate exclusion; it simply does not occur to the mass of public people that God's will could have any bearing on the public well-being; and the needs within a man that only God can meet are no longer felt as needs, but as an undiagnosed malaise, discomfort, unsatisfaction which they do not connect with any absence of God. All the affairs of the world they see as to be settled within the boundaries of the world, either because there is no other; or because the other is other, a world to be lived in separately by such as choose, the two worlds not impinging, only this one really mattering.
Seeing the time we live in analyzed like that, we are not likely at first to realize how much we are immersed in it. Yet it is a miracle if we are wholly untouched by it, even in our deepest certainties. We do not accept its denials or its doubts; but we are almost certainly affected by its emphases--unconsciously, for the most part. We believe in the Mysteries totally; we know that all holiness is in them, that death would be better than the denial of any syllable of them. And yet...
Let us look at the word 'Totally'. We feel the glory of having the Mysteries... but have we any equal feeling of the destitution that goes with *not* having them? ... Not what we *should* feel if others' starvation was bodily; for we do know the value of the bread that perishes. The world thinks that bodily starvation really matters and spiritual does not. It looks frighteningly as though we thought so too.
If we do not see God's revelation as mattering to everybody, then we have not grasped reality; we then believe it, but not totally. That this is not a fanciful inference from our behavior is shown by the phrase we too often use to dismiss their destitution--and our own inaction: they do not know that God has revealed our doctrines and our sacraments, we tell ourselves, therefore they are not sinning by not receiving them. Their starvation need not be relieved because it is not sinful--a strange reaction to starvation. There is such a thing as invincible ignorance, though there may be some responsibility in those whose refusal to reach insures its invincibility. People will not be lost eternally for what they invincibly did not know, true. But what of the richness, light, and nourishment they might be having here upon earth?
The mysteries, then, are not a luxury for the spiritually-minded (like us!); they are necessities of life for everyone. Not to see them as so is a key example of the damping and discoloration I have talked of...
... Insanity is all about us. I do not mean that men individually are madmen, but they add up to a society which is not truly sane. Sanity means seeing what’s there and planning life accordingly. And as a society ours does not see the major part of reality at all, therefore does not see aright the minor part that it is aware of, shapes its activities as though the mis-seen fraction of reality were the whole of it. Secular ethics means deciding our actions as though there were no God, while not settling the question whether there is or not. I do not mean that men of this mind are acting evilly: they may act nobly, (just as believers may act appallingly). But they would add a fuller rationality to their nobility if they knew the true order of reality.
To act without full vision is a formula for chaos. And in chaos we live, exhibited to us by every newspaper we read, yet disguised from us by the care and intelligence and good will expended upon the understanding and ordering of the fraction; disguised again by the mental muscularity, the almost blinding scientific and technological brilliance, with which the seen part of reality is analyzed, is formulated and systematized, packaged, and offered for acceptance. The chaos is amiable so far; but chaos cannot be relied on to stay amiable--there are parts of the world in which it has not.
Even short of some such catastrophe befalling our own part of the world, it is not good to be the sane minority in a society that has lost contact with God. We hold our own mental health precariously when sanity so partial and defective is accepted as the norm. Insanity is catching: we grow uncertain of the cadences of normal speech when all around us men are gibbering, and gibbering so learnedly and so gravely and so confidently. Our world at its best has all the airs and graces, the rationalizations and courtesies and card indexes of sanity, so that the notion that it might not be sane may not occur to us. The card indexes especially, so tidy, so efficient, so inclusive: only a fanatic would question the rationality of the mind that produces them.
‘Fanatic’ is the word. We can frighten ourselves with it. I have talked of assumptions and seepage that we are unaware of. But there is something else: the Catholic can be consciously embarrassed at his difference. There are those who feel out of step, self-conscious because out of step, self-questioning because out of step. If they have not made the mysteries of revelation truly their own, they may see life fluid and free, theology all bones. There is great psychological value in a strong affirmation, said Belloc. No affirmation was ever stronger than our world makes of its own rightness.
The temptation is to try to get into step with everybody else, while somehow hanging on to the truths. Short of denying them, there is a kind of scaling down and shading off, a resolute switching of the mind away from doctrines at which the world would raise an eyebrow. At all costs, one must not be a fanatic. St. Paul had met this attitude, right at our beginnings: “Be not conformed to this world, but be re-formed by the newing of your mind” (Rom. 12.1).
It is not only Faith that demands this, but sheerest common sense. On remembers a stock joke of the last fifty years—the old lady watching a line of soldiers on parade and saying proudly, “They’re all out of step except my George.” We all smile, we all assume without the shadow of a second thought that it is George who is out of step. But if everybody else in the battalion happened to be deaf, then George might well be the only one marching in time to the music of the band.
The parallel is exact. The follower of Christ does hear a music that does not reach the ears of other men: he is bound to be out of step with them, for they are out of step with it. But in our world we must listen to that music with unflagging attention: partly that it may not be drowned out of our own ears by all the tomtoms of chaos, partly that others may begin to catch from us first some hint of the rhythm, then some hint of the tune.
, 36 (NY: Sheed & Ward, 1966).[Hat tip to J.M.]
Jack Kemp dies of cancer, 73
Jack Kemp, football star and politician, dies (MyWay, May 3, 2009):"Jack Kemp, the former pro quarterback who turned fame on the gridiron into a career in national politics and a crusade for lower taxes, has died of cancer at age 73 [yesterday evening].
... Former President George W. Bush expressed his sorrow after hearing of Kemp's death.
"Laura and I are saddened by the death of Jack Kemp," he said. "Jack will be remembered for his significant contributions to the Reagan revolution and his steadfast dedication to conservative principles during his long and distinguished career in public service. Jack's wife Joanne and the rest of the Kemp family are in our thoughts and prayers."
... Kemp was a 17th round 1957 NFL draft pick by the Detroit Lions, but was cut before the season began ... [He] led Buffalo to the 1964 and 1965 AFL Championships, and won the league's most valuable player award in 1965.
Kemp was born in California to Christian Scientist parents ... [but] became a Presbyterian after marrying his college sweetheart, Joanne Main.
... Through his political life, Kemp's positions spanned the social spectrum: He opposed abortion and supported school prayer, yet appealed to liberals with his outreach toward minorities and compassion for the poor. He pushed for immigration reform to include a guest-worker program and status for the illegal immigrants already here.
De Deféctibus – Part 2 of 4
[See: De Deféctibus – Part 1 of 4" (Musings, April 26, 2009).]
Tridentine Community News (May 3, 2009):
Tridentine Community News (May 3, 2009):
We continue our presentation of the 1962 Roman Missal instruction, De Deféctibus (On Defects Occurring in the Celebration of Mass), which displays the Church’s concern for the Blessed Sacrament and the validity of the Eucharist that the faithful may receive.[Comments? Please e-mail tridnews@stjosaphatchurch.org. Previous columns are available at www.stjosaphatchurch.org. This edition of Tridentine Community News, with minor editions, is from the St. Josaphat bulletin insert for May 3, 2009. Hat tip to A.B.]
IV. Defect of Wine (con’t.)
17. If he finds out, before or after the Consecration, that the wine is completely vinegar or otherwise corrupt, he is to follow the same procedure as above, as if he were to find that no wine had been put into the chalice, or that only water had been put in.
18. If the celebrant remembers before the consecration of the chalice that there was no water added, he is to put some in at once and say the words of the Consecration. If he remembers this after the consecration of the chalice, he is not to add any water, because the water is not necessary to the Sacrament.
19. If a defect either of bread or of wine is discovered before the consecration of the Body, and the material needed cannot be obtained in any way, the priest should not continue any further. If after the consecration of the Body, or even of the wine, a defect in either species is discovered, and the material needed cannot be obtained in any way, then the priest should continue and complete the Mass if the defective material has already been consecrated, omitting the words and signs that pertain to the defective species. But if the material needed can be obtained with some little delay, he should wait, in order that the Sacrament may not remain incomplete.
V. Defects of the Form
20. Defects on the part of the form may arise if anything is missing from the complete wording required for the act of consecrating. Now the words of the Consecration, which are the form of this Sacrament, are:
HOC EST ENIM CORPUS MEUM, and HIC EST ENIM CALIX SÁNGUINIS MEI, NOVI ET ÆTÉRNI TESTAMÉNTI: MYSTÉRIUM FIDÉI: QUI PRO VOBIS ET PRO MULTIS EFFUNDÉTUR IN REMISSIÓNEM PECCATÓRUM.
If the priest were to shorten or change the form of the consecration of the Body and the Blood, so that in the change of wording the words did not mean the same thing, he would not be achieving a valid Sacrament. If, on the other hand, he were to add or take away anything which did not change the meaning, the Sacrament would be valid, but he would be committing a grave sin.
21. If the celebrant does not remember having said the usual words in the Consecration, he should not for that reason be worried. If, however, he is sure that he omitted something necessary to the Sacrament, that is, the form of the Consecration or a part of it, he is to repeat the formula and continue from there. If he thinks it is very likely that he omitted something essential, he is to repeat the formula conditionally, though the condition need not be expressed. But if what he omitted is not necessary to the Sacrament, he is not to repeat anything; he should simply continue the Mass.
VI. Defects of the Minister
22. Defects on the part of the minister may arise with regard to the things required in him. These are: first of all the intention, then the disposition of soul, the bodily disposition, the disposition of vestments, the disposition in the rite itself with regard to the things that may occur in it.
VII. Defect of Intention
23. The intention of consecrating is required. Therefore there is no consecration in the following cases: when a priest does not intend to consecrate but only to make a pretense; when some hosts remain on the altar forgotten by the priest, or when some part of the wine or some host is hidden, since the priest intends to consecrate only what is on the corporal; when a priest has eleven hosts before him and intends to consecrate only ten, without determining which ten he means to consecrate. On the other hand, if he thinks there are ten, but intends to consecrate all that he has before him, then all will be consecrated. For that reason every priest should always have such an intention, namely the intention of consecrating all the hosts that have been placed on the corporal before him for consecration.
24. If the priest thinks that he is holding one Host but discovers after the Consecration that there were two Hosts stuck together, he is to consume both when the time comes. If after receiving the Body and Blood, or even after the ablution, he finds other consecrated Pieces, large or small, he is to consume them, because they belong to the same sacrifice.
25. If, however, a whole consecrated Host is left, he is to put It into the tabernacle with the others that are there; if this cannot be done, he is to consume It.
26. It may be that the intention is not actual at the time of the Consecration because the priest lets his mind wander, yet is still virtual, since he has come to the altar intending to do what the Church does. In this case the Sacrament is valid. A priest should be careful, however, to make his intention actual also.
VIII. Defects of the Disposition of Soul
27. If a priest celebrates Mass in a state of mortal sin or under some ecclesiastical penalty, he does celebrate a valid Sacrament, but he sins most grievously.
IX. Defects of the Disposition of Body
28. If a priest has not been fasting for at least one hour before Communion, he may not celebrate. The drinking of water, however, does not break the fast.
29. The sick, even though they are not bed-ridden, may take non-alcoholic liquids as well as true and proper medicine, whether liquid or solid, before the celebration of Mass, without any time limit.
Saturday, May 02, 2009
Obama's talent: Léger de main
Mark Steyn, "Obama looks moderate, acts radical" (Orange County Register, May 1, 2009):
[Hat tip to S.K.]
We're still in the first hundred days of the joyous observances of Barack Obama's first hundred days, and many weeks of celebration lie ahead, so here are my thoughts:Read the other half of the article here.
President Obama's strongest talent is not his speechifying, which is frankly a bit of a snoozeroo. In Europe, he left 'em wanting less pretty much every time (headline from Britain's Daily Telegraph: "Barack Obama Really Does Go On A Bit"). That uptilted chin combined with the left-right teleprompter neck swivel you can set your watch by makes him look like an emaciated Mussolini umpiring an endless rally of high lobs on Centre Court at Wimbledon. Each to his own, but I don't think those who routinely hail him as the greatest orator since Socrates actually sit through many of his speeches.
On the other hand, if you just caught a couple of minutes of last Wednesday's press conference, you'd be impressed. When that groupie from The New York Times asked the president about what, during his first hundred days, "had surprised you the most … enchanted you the most … humbled you the most and troubled you the most", Obama made a point of getting out his pen, writing it down and repeating back the multiple categories: "Enchanted," he said. "Nice." Indeed. Some enchanted evening, you may see a stranger, you may see a stranger across a crowded room, but then he scribbles down your multipart question to be sure he gets it right, and he looks so thoughtful, and suddenly he's not a stranger anymore, and the sound of his laughter will ring in your dreams.
The theater of thoughtfulness is critical to the president's success. He has the knack of appearing moderate while acting radical, which is a lethal skill. The thoughtful look suckered many of my more impressionable conservative comrades last fall, when David Brooks and Christopher Buckley were cranking out gushing paeans to Obama's "first-class temperament" – temperament being to the Obamacons what Nick Jonas' hair is to a Tiger Beat reporter. But the drab reality is that the man they hail – Brooks & Buckley, I mean; not the Tiger Beat crowd – is a fantasy projection. There is no Obama The Sober Centrist, although it might make a good holiday song:"Obama The Sober CentristAnd it is. But underneath the thoughtful look is a transformative domestic agenda that represents a huge annexation of American life by an ever more intrusive federal government. One cannot but admire the singleminded ruthlessness with which Obama is getting on with it, even as he hones his contemplative unhurried moderate routine on prime time news conferences. On foreign affairs, the shtick is less effective, but mainly because he's not so engaged by the issues: He's got big plans for health care, and federalized education, and an eco-friendly government-run automobile industry – and Iran's nuclear program just gets in the way. He'd rather not think about it, and his multicontinental apology tours are his way of kicking the can down the road until that blessed day when America is just another sclerotic Euro-style social democracy, and even your more excitable jihadi won't be able to jump up and down chanting "Death to the Great Satan!" with a straight face.
Had a very thoughtful mien
And if you ever saw it
You would say it's peachy keen …"
[Hat tip to S.K.]
Dashboard rocket science?
I hate smelling the noxious fumes of vehicles in front of me. Michigan, of all environmentally-conscious, 'progressive' places, has no state-mandated annual vehicle inspection (like Jesse Helms-lovin', 'yahoo' North Carolina does), so vehicles in and around Detroit often not only look like they are held together by Scotch Tape, but emit billowing plumes of nefarious toxic fumes.
Here's the rub: I've driven a variety of different American automobiles, but I have yet to find one that effectively shuts out external air when switched to recycle inside air. I've driven Fords that didn't even have this as an option, though one could cut off the outside air by turning on the air conditioning and switching it to Max/Cold (not very convenient in the winter).
I hate this. None of the Hondas or Toyotas or Subarus I've driven ever had this problem. They all had clear controls indicating how one could switch to recycle cabin air, and they effectively shut out external fumes. Does anyone know whether Ford or GM has mastered the rocket science behind this sophisticated technology in any of its products?
Report: Obama revelling in imperial power
So much for modest backgrounds and humble beginnings: Steve Holland gives the President's perspective on his first 100 days (Reuters, May 1, 2009):
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Barack Obama is revelling in presidential power and influence unseen in Washington for decades.From democracy to tyranny: it's all in Plato's Republic, Book VIII.10—IX-3 (555b—576b).
Barely 100 days in office, the U.S. president and his Democratic Party have firm control over the White House and Congress and the ability to push through ambitious plans.
Now, with the coming retirement of a Supreme Court justice clearing the way for him to appoint a successor, Obama already is assured a legacy at the top of all three branches of government -- executive, legislative and judicial.
On the corporate front, the federal government's pumping of billions of dollars in bailout money into banks and auto companies has given Obama the power to force an overhaul in those industries, a remarkable intervention in capitalist industries by the state.
Americans are giving him leeway as well. His job approval ratings are well over 60 percent, giving him political capital to undertake big challenges.
His political opponents, the Republicans, are in disarray, reduced in numbers and engaged in an internal struggle over how to recover from devastating election losses in 2006 and last year.
Friday, May 01, 2009
Investiture controversy redivivus
Well, not quite the "Investiture Controversy," maybe, but something close. In the latest issue of the Knights of Columbus periodical, Columbia (May 2009), Supreme Knight Carl A. Anderson has an article entitled, "A Direct Attack on the First Amendment" (p. 3), addressing a Bill no. 1098 in the State of Connecticut, which, if passed, would have exclusively targeted the Catholic Church and "wrested authority over parish affairs from our bishops and priests and instead turned over control to a series of elected boards (trustees), explicitly excluding bishops and pastors."As Anderson mentions, the First Amendment of the US Constitution, however, declares that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercize thereof...." He continues:
Although one in four Americans is Catholic, the country still has a very Protestant outlook on certain issues.As you probably know, the Bill 1098 awoke a "sleeping giant" in the response of the state's Catholic population. Knights and their families formed a crowd of more than 5,000 with other Catholics and concerned citizens who gathered at the State Capitol on March 11. The bill was ultimately tabled.
... While the stated purpose for the Connecticut bill was to prevent financial mismanagement of parishes, its proponents seemed unaware that such mismanagement is rare and is addressed effectively by regulations already in place. In the end, the bill was both unconstitutional and unnecessary.
This attack was surprising, but not unprecedented. In Connecticut, Catholics were legally forbidden from holding public office or owning land, even in the 19th century.
After ratification of the First Amendment in 1791, Catholics in the Constitution state hat to wait nearly three decades for religious freedom....
,,, Bill 1098 would have turned the clock back more than 150 years, proving that Catholics must guard against a return to bigotry. The lesson from the 19th century is that the power to impose structures that grant or take away authority from Church leadrs is the power to intimidate and ultimately to destroy.
If a state can ignore the First Amendment and tell the Catholic Church how it must be organized and operated today, it can easily do the same tomorrow to any religion.
Yet Bill 1098 was the second attempt in recent years to directly attack the Catholic Church in the State of Connecticut. The fist attempt was a bill some years back that would have eliminated the seal of confession. As Anderson observes: "We can only expect that here, and elsewhere, such attacks -- and more subtle ones -- are likely."
In closing, Anderson writes: "I want to thank all my brother Knights in Connecticut who worked so hard to defeat this attack on our Church and our religious liberties. Vivat Jesus!"
Clouds on the horizon?
Norman Podhoretz, "How Obama's America Might Threaten Israel" (Commentary, May 2009):
Is there a threat to Israel from the United States under Barack Obama? The question itself seems perverse. For in spite of the hostility to Israel in certain American quarters, this country has more often than not been the beleaguered Jewish state’s only friend in the face of threats coming from others. Nor has the young Obama administration been any less fervent than its last two predecessors in declaring an undying commitment to the security and survival of Israel.[Hat tip to E.E.]
Nevertheless, during the 2008 presidential campaign, friends of Israel (a category that, speculations to the contrary notwithstanding, still includes a large majority of the American Jewish community) had ample reason for anxiety over Obama. The main reason was his attitude toward Iran.
... The upshot is that, barring military action by Israel (or a miracle), Iran will get the bomb, and sooner rather than later. What then? For some time now, many pundits with the ear of the Obama administration have ... fallen back on the position that we can “live with” a nuclear Iran. In line with the doctrine of Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD), they soothingly tell us, the mullahs can be deterred by the fear of retaliation much as the far more heavily armed Soviets and Chinese were deterred during the cold war....
... Ahmadinejad’s predecessor as president and the current Speaker of the Assembly of Experts, the Ayatollah Hashemi Rafsanjani, known far and wide as a “moderate,” has declared that his country would not be deterred by the fear of retaliation:If the day comes when the world of Islam is duly equipped with the arms Israel has in its possession . . . application of an atomic bomb would not leave anything in Israel, but the same thing would just produce damages in the Muslim world.If this is the position of even a reputed Iranian moderate, how could Israel depend upon MAD to keep the mullahs from launching a first strike? Much anxiety has been voiced over the nuclear arms race that would be triggered throughout the region if Iran were to get the bomb, but in all truth we would be lucky if there were enough time for such a race to develop.For consider: if the Iranians were to get the bomb, the Israelis would be presented with an almost irresistible incentive to beat them to the punch with a preemptive strike—and so, understanding this, would Tehran. Either way, a nuclear exchange would become, if not inevitable, terrifyingly likely, and God alone knows how far the destruction would then spread.
Measured against this horrendous possibility, even the worst imaginable consequences of taking military action before the mullahs get the bomb would amount to chump change. But to say it again, with American military action ruled out, the only hope is that such action—which could at the very least head off the otherwise virtually certain prospect of a nuclear war—will be taken by Israel.
... if there is a threat to Israel coming from Obama, it is that, having eschewed the use of force by the United States, he will follow through on his Vice President’s declaration that the Israelis would be “ill-advised” to attack the Iranian nuclear sites and will prevent them from doing the job themselves.
Public symbols: Woodward & Jenkins on Notre Dame
As a follow-up on our recent post, "Kenneth Woodward on Notre Dame: a critique" (Musings, April 30, 2009), a friend and correspondent from the West Coast writes:
From Ken Woodward's defense of ND's Obama invite (The Washington Post, March 30, 2009): "He will receive an honorary degree because it is the custom, not as a blessing on any of his decisions."[Hat tip to K.K.]
Dear. God. In. Heaven.
A custom with meaning, or a custom without meaning?
If without meaning, then by all means let Fr Jenkins open the ceremony with, "What we are about to do is simply a custom without meaning. Let us proceed."
If with meaning, then what does it mean?
Re: said meaning, Fr Jenkins tells us that ND's proposed honors (incl. the honorary doctorate) do not signify (that is, mean) an endorsement of any evil policy of Obama's. Well, I'm sure they don't... in Fr. Jenkins' mind. Otherwise, Fr. Jenkins would himself be in dissent from the Church's moral teaching.
Both these gentlemen are displaying an obtuseness regarding the nature of a public symbol, that I am sure neither would display in other contexts. Fr Jenkins says, in effect, "This honorary doctorate means what I wish it to mean, neither more nor less" (cf. Humpty Dumpty). Indeed, in Fr. Jenkins' little private world of symbols, this honorary degree may mean (or not mean) whatever he wills. But it is not up to him to determine the meaning of a public symbol, said meaning being... well, public. And the public is letting him know what it means.
Therefore, it would be wrong (though tempting to some pessimistic souls) to say that public symbols are generally empty of meaning in our culture. On the contrary. Our elites employ such symbols with venal cynicism, precisely in order to trade on the public meaning they still retain. People like Woodward and Fr Jenkins are, we hope, not cynics. But they are myopic, and both the cynicism and the myopia are symptoms of our time.
Subscribe to:
Comment Feed (RSS)
Posts
