Ubi Petrus

Fr. Martin Fox has fired off a great salvo against this dictatorship of relativism in his latest homily, which he is kind enough to post on his blog. He really boils down some of the “hot” topics of the current day, pulling into what I can surmise was a ten minute homily several subjects I have yet to hear preached on even alone, let alone in combination. A couple small snippets, then as “they” would say, Go – Read. I can only hope that more of those who are called to preach and to teach do so with this kind of honesty and clarity.

But what about when we get caught up in a cause—
a political campaign, a union,
some environmental or ideological effort—
and we’re going to save the world.

Notice, if we forget to keep God first,
how easily people become a means to an end.
…
The research that respects God’s law, is working;
meanwhile, the version that defies God’s law,
is having problems. Isn’t that interesting?

Notice what the advocates keep saying:
Don’t bring God into it—we just want to help people!
But by leaving God out,
the result is destruction of human life.
…
When we separate love of neighbor from love of God,
it will always go sour.

Better to listen to Jesus: Do both.

Father Jonathan has been putting up links to stories that he has read that have caught his attention. In today’s entry he pointed to the results of a study on morality and sexuality by the Barna Group. The study was designed to compare and contrast the views on a variety of moral issues between those in their twenties and thirties (the “Busters” – a term I hadn’t come across until now) and those over fourty (obviously, the “Boomers”).

The results of the study shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone who has crawled out from under a rock in the last week or so. The Buster generation views almost anything as morally acceptable, where the Boomer generation is more “conservative”. There is a certain irony in calling the children of the sixties “conservative”, but that is beside the point. You can go and read all the gory details, and it probably wouldn’t hurt you to do so since it’s something we’ll be dealing with for the rest of our lives, but I found a couple of very important quotes.

“It is rare to see such large gaps between population segments and it confirms a major shift in the way Busters think and behave sexually. Sexual experimentation is not new. But it is striking to see sexual behaviors and attitudes that were uncommon now becoming part of the accepted, mainstream experience of young people.” The Vice President of the Barna Group added, “We expect to see this mindset of sexual entitlement translate into increased appetites for pornography, unfiltered acceptance of sexual themes and content in media, and continued dissolution of marriages due to infidelity. It seems entirely possible that current events such as the Mark Foley scandal, instances of abuse by clergy, and the sexually oriented school shootings of recent months are not mere aberrations, but symptoms of a sexually unrestrained society.”

That’s a very threatening statement, but on its face certainly one anyone who is paying attention to the culture on a broad scale would find accurate at least on the surface. Perhaps more interesting is this explanation of why things are changing.

[Director of research David] Kinnaman explained that “…Boomers took moral experimentation to new heights, but Busters now live in a world where such experimentation is the norm, not the exception. Busters have a more disconnected, individualized, less trusting spin on morality. … Boomers experimented to overthrow the morals of their parents, while Busters live with a mindset of trying to survive.”

When one is in the mindset of just trying to survive, a stringent morality tends to be viewed as a luxurious frill rather than a necessary part of living a life worth of the One who put you here. Now…we all also know the currently accepted wisdom that the younger generations (the “Busters” and those younger than that) feel that churches in general have failed to answer their questions, that they do not feel any of the organizations that have supported the fabric of our society have relevance to them any more. But this, mis amigos, is where I firmly believe the Church, as in the Catholic Church has the answers they are seeking, if only we are willing to offer them in the stead of the syrupy drivel they have been fed thus far by others.

“It is important for churches to understand the natural skepticism of Busters as well as their desire for spiritual and conversational depth,” he continued. “Young adults do not want to hear on-the-stage monologues about moral regulations. To earn access to their hearts and minds, you have to understand each person’s unique background, identity, and doubts, and must tangibly model a biblical lifestyle for them beyond the walls of the church.” [my emphasis]

Now you tell me, what other entity in this world has the depth of existence that is at the core of the Church established by Christ himself almost two thousand years ago? The richness of the history, the depth of the theology, the varied natures of the celebration, the underlying unity – these are things which the Church can offer in depths unreachable by any other entity. The question is, are we willing to pull the covers off of this depth, to show those who are questioning and seeking the answers they have longed to find even though it makes us different than those around us? I believe, obviously, we can; the question then becomes, will we, which then is up to each and every one of us. Outreach – evangelization – it is the call of every Christian.

I admit it, I’ve been having a rough go of it lately. I don’t really know why, and I don’t ever expect to fully know why this side of the great Abyss. I mention it only because perhaps it is this great malaise with which I have been dealing that makes what I’m about to quote so powerful to me. While reading Pope Benedict’s What It Means to Be a Christian I left myself a series of marker tabs for bits I thought particularly interesting. I noticed the tabs when I sat down just now and started to flip through them. I don’t know – it speaks to me, does it speak to you?

So when we say that the meaning of Christian service, the meaning of our Christian faith cannot be determined solely on the basis of the individual believer, but, rather, that this meaning derives from taking an essential, indispensable place in the whole and for the sake of the whole; when we say that we are Christians, not for our own sakes, but because God wishes us, and needs us, to take on this service in the broad sweep of history, then we should not, nevertheless, fall into the opposite error of talking as though the individual were only a small cog in the great cosmic machine. Although it is true that God wants, not just individuals, but all of us in our relations with and for one another, it nonetheless remains true that he knws and loves every single one of us, for ourselves. Jesus Christ, the Son of God and Son of man, in whom there took place the decisive breakthrough of universal history toward the union of the creature with God, was an individual, born of a human mother. He lived a unique life, had his own personal face, and died his own death. What is both offensive and sublime in the Christian message
is still that the fate of all history, our fate, depends on one individual: Jesus of Nazareth.
…
Yet we should live no less from this great certainty, this great joy: that God loves me, this particular person; that he loves each one who has a human face, however disturbed and however distorted that human face might be. And when we say, “God loves me”, we should not simply feel the responsibility, the danger of being unworthy of that love; rather, we should accept the message about love and grace in all its sublimity and its integrity.

I find this passage to be typical Benedict. Simple, sublime, complex, intricate and obvious all wound up into one, but also overwhelmingly positive. You can tell that he truly feels and desires to translate to the reader the incalculable love God has for each and every one of us. It is a strange thing to contemplate, that God could not love any one of us more if we were the only one He had ever created, and yet he created us as social creatures and one of a great multitude.

Benedict comes back again and again in his works (those I have read so far, anyway) to make the point that God has shown repeatedly that He wishes to reveal Himself in this world through his creation, not just in the by now over-played “see God in the mountains and animals” way but in the pinnacle of His creation, the one thing He created formed in His image and likeness. Benedict reminds us over and over that God has decided to reveal himself to humanity in us, but not just in “us” as an abstract grouping of people, but as the concrete definite individuals we all are and in the amalgam we have created of it. Our call is, simply, to help God reveal Himself to those around us. We do not do this because we are God per se, but because we allow Him to work through us. This reflection is piqued I think on the events of the past two days, All Saints and All Souls days, where we take special time to reflect on those who helped to reveal something of God in their lives, and in some special cases that revelation stays with us to this day and is retold over and over.

No matter how dark and dank a day may become that is a fact that, when reflected upon, makes it impossible to stay harshly depressed. Your day, your week, may be difficult but that difficulty is not what God has called you to; He has called you to help to reveal Him to those around you. He chose to reveal himself to us in the form of a man, not as an angel nor as a divine manuscript handed down on a cloud detailing everything to us for all posterity. No, he came as a man, as one like us in all things but sin. Does it not, indeed, make sense that He would continue to wish to work through man to continue to reveal Himself? And as our Holy Father reminded us, since Deus Caritas Est, since God is Love, that revelation is the continued revelation of what truly is Love. Positively heartwarming.

Update: I hate it when I forget titles… *sigh*

I’m still working through C.S. Lewis’ classic Mere Christianity. One would swear I’m reading slower as I get older. Or perhaps it’s that as I get older I’m paying more attention to what I’m reading; I rather like to believe it is the latter rather than the former. But enough of that.

I was making my way the other day through his section on Social Morality and had to re-read his conclusion to the section. Not because, as usual, I was distracted but rather because it really struck me in how utterly relevant it is to us as Catholics as we try to decide in the voting process how we are to balance the different issues. His call is, simply, remember that we are to be Christians first, then political entities. If we are lacking in the fullness of our Christian witness it is likely we will be lacking in our political positions as well.

A Christian society is not going to arrive until most of us really want it: and we are not going to want it until we become fully Christian. I may repeat ‘Do as you would be done by’ till I am black in the face, but I cannot really carry it out till I love my neighbour as myself: and I cannot learn to love my neighbour as myself till I learn to love God: and I cannot learn to love God except by learning to obey Him. And so, as I warned you, we are driven on to something more inward – driven on from social matters to religious matters. For the longest way round is the shortest way home.

Responding to an issue reported here, among other places, that a notoriously anti-Catholic Catholic priest has been given permission to run for political office, Dr. Ed Peters has posted a nice analysis of the relevant canon law. He states quite to-the-point:

Under the 1983 Code, Catholic priests are flatly prohibited from holding governmental office: Canon 285.3 plainly states “Clerics are forbidden to assume public offices which entail a participation in the exercise of civil power.” The legislative history of this norm makes obvious the Legislator’s intent to eliminate any exceptions to this rule.

He does bring up a couple of remote possibilities where it could be judged “possible” to allow a dispensation under Can. 87 and 90 but also, IMO correctly, states the thought that such a dispensation would serve a “spiritual good” is laughable. How exactly allowing a dissident priest the ability to enforce his warped views on sexuality, abortion and more by voting on laws would possibly bring about a “spiritual good” is positively beyond me. If anything, the good Father deserves the same result as was given to Fr. Marcel Maciel – a lifetime of prayer and penance. People who attack the Church from a position of power and drag down unwitting sheep of Her flock have much to answer for.

A while ago, Whispers posted a pointer to a story from the English edition of 30 giorni on the time the then-Ratzinger spent at the University of Tübingen. I finally had a chance to take a breath today and read the story. It’s a very unique look at a time in Benedict’s life that was very formational, some would suggest transformational. You can see bits and pieces of the Benedict we have come to know pushing their way up to the surface and you are not remotely surprised to see that he had upwards of 400 students pushing to get into his lectures. The article is a great read, and very insightful. As a blogger is wont to say, “Go! Read!”

Fr. Martin Fox has an interview he did with Michael J. Fox on the topic of the Missouri Amendment 2 issue. Well, not really – Fr. Fox filled in for the actor, but does a masterful job shifting chairs. If for no other reason, you can read it as a great resource for critical thinking when it comes to ESCR.

Some of you will recognize the subject as the beginning of the infamous line from Joseph Goebbels which continues, “…and keep on repeating it people will eventually come to believe it.” Now…as if that isn’t a big enough lead-in to any post…

A friend at the catholic-pages forum posted a link to a story from James Carroll of the Boston Globe. If you haven’t already heaved a sigh at that combination you may not know of their combined, err, “issues” with the Catholic Church. The Globe, of course, is where the priest child abuse scandal really broke in Boston and they have angled after the Church ever since.

In this piece, Mr. Carroll goes after the desire of many in the Catholic Church to be allowed to celebrate the Mass in the manner stipulated by the Second Vatican Council. No, that does not mean free-form Masses, the “four-hymn sandwich” (thanks Amy – I love that term!) or the complete removal of Latin or chant. As a quick refresher in case you’ve been asleep for the past forty years, let’s review some of Sacrosanctum Concilium.

36. 1. Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites.
2. But since the use of the mother tongue, whether in the Mass, the administration of the sacraments, or other parts of the liturgy, frequently may be of great advantage to the people, the limits of its employment may be extended. This will apply in the first place to the readings and directives, and to some of the prayers and chants, according to the regulations on this matter to be laid down separately in subsequent chapters.
…
54. In Masses which are celebrated with the people, a suitable place may be allotted to their mother tongue. This is to apply in the first place to the readings and “the common prayer,” but also, as local conditions may warrant, to those parts which pertain to the people, according to tho norm laid down in Art. 36 of this Constitution.
Nevertheless steps should be taken so that the faithful may also be able to say or to sing together in Latin those parts of the Ordinary of the Mass which pertain to them.
And wherever a more extended use of the mother tongue within the Mass appears desirable, the regulation laid down in Art. 40 of this Constitution is to be observed.

Now, if you’ve read this carefully you’ll realize that Latin was, in fact, never to be removed from the Mass in the first place. The closest one comes is in Art. 36 wherein the phrase “some prayers and chants” could be construed to mean “all prayers and chants”. But then, one is left to wonder, if the Council had meant “all”, why did they not in fact use the word “all”? Occam’s Razor would suggest, in fact, they never did mean “all” and its interposition is in fact an error.

This contrasts sharply with what James Carroll posits, having of course introduced himself as one “in the know” by repeating a well-known Latin phrase and citing his credentials as a former altar boy:

The first vote taken by the bishops of the Second Vatican Council in 1962 concerned liturgical reform, centering on use of the vernacular at Mass. If the Council fathers had voted against worshipping in language ordinary believers could understand, the revolutionary impulse driving that Council would have been stopped dead in its tracks, but the tally was overwhelmingly in favor. The Latin Mass was finished. With that single vote, the Council set loose a current of change that is still running.

Once Catholics entered into the mystery of the Mass as literate participants instead of as dumb spectators, an unprecedented renewal took hold.

For anyone who can read between the lines, Mr. Carroll has clearly insulted just about anyone who attended Mass prior to the upheaval following the promulgation of Sacrosanctum Concilium. In his estimation you all were akin to sheep, or perhaps more accurately cows, meandering along an unwitting path totally devoid of knowledge of your surroundings as the hammer raised over your head. Is it true that many people did not know enough Latin to understand the “old Mass” and that there were liturgical abuses such as the “McMass”? Absolutely. But is it not also fair to say that many, if not most, people were raised with a sufficient knowledge of Latin to understand the Mass? Indeed, if you look into almost any Missal even today you see Latin on one page and English on the other. It doesn’t take a PhD. to learn the translation one to the other.

Now, as Pope Benedict has said previously (for instance, in his book Principles of Catholic Theology) given the length of time this error has been in force it is entirely probable that a surgical removal of this error and complete replacement of it with what had originally been intended would likely cause harm to the Church, much as its original implementation harmed the Church. This is why, I believe, the Pope is leaning towards not so much a universal indult but a universal clarification, possibly in the form of an indult (how’s that for cutting hairs?) that the use of Latin in the Latin Rite Churches is to be restored as a universal right not dependant on the whim of the particular Ordinary at the time. The further restoration of the Tridentine Latin Mass (or, as many of those who are strongly drawn to it would say, the “TLM”) is likely and I would expect it to be received as any of the other Rites of the Catholic Church only, I believe, in much greater number.

The one thing that seems missing from the whole discussion on liturgy among Catholics of different persuasions is often, sadly, respect for differing viewpoints. Is the Novus Ordo the cause of all of the current ills in the Church? Hardly. Abuses of the Novus Ordo are clear signposts, however, of those ills and at the same time pointers to what must be done to remedy them. Here’s a strange thought – it is possible the Novus Ordo is a movement of the Holy Spirit designed to highlight the dark corners of abuse which the Tridentine Rite with its strict regimentation and whispered (or mumbled or slurred or perhaps ignored all together) prayers may have left unlit. Is that a fault of the Tridentine Rite? Not at all – those participating in it, both at the altar and in the pews are called to an actuose participet (Art. 113), an “actual participation” (not the “active” participation that has led to some “interesting” liturgical inventions) which also presupposes a spiritual predisposition to performing a respective role properly and with humility.

I suggest that, now that these corners are lit, the time has come to allow the Church to reconnect with Her history and allow both the Tridentine Rite and Latin in the Novus Ordo to co-exist as equals with the vernacular Novus Ordo. After all, is this One Holy Catholic Church big enough for these Rites, properly observed? I think it is.

Update: Gerald has been good enough to give his own riff on this subject and link over to this post as well. Heavens! I have company coming – I’d best tidy up the place! Welcome to anyone coming here from his The Cafeteria is Closed blog!

Update 2: Diogenes has picked up on this story too (thanks for the pointer Lilo!). And, might I say, in his own unique way, nailed it. And he is precisely correct – how is it that the Globe manages to keep publishing personal vendettas like this and still call itself a responsible journalistic source?

I’m not normally one to go to great lengths to complain about abuses by members of the congregation. Sure, sometimes I’ll be in an already cranky mood and grouse when I see short shorts or a halter top making their way up to receive communion, but I recognize that’s not entirely something I need to worry myself about at the same time and that I need to further focus myself on why I’m there – the Eucharist. You know, the Source, Center and Summit of Catholic life?

So why is this little norm bugging me like a bad tag under the collar? I mean besides the fact that I have to explain to people about once a month that Vatican II did not make the Eucharistic fast optional. That’s par for the course – so many things were changed so fast with so little explanation some people who went through that are still a little dizzy I think. But this one had to take the cake. Have you ever looked up from having your head bowed in prayer to watch someone take a nice big swig of their Dunkin’ Donuts coffee? At church? During the homily? I know the current recommended “minimum” is one hour before reception of the Eucharist, but doesn’t ten minutes seem to be stretching it a little? Perhaps I’m being petulant – Lord knows I have that habit. But if nothing else, doesn’t this seem an ample opportunity for, as the Church likes to call it, a “teachable moment”? Someone, please, anyone, tell me the last time you heard anything at all about the Eucharistic fast. Please, someone tell me we haven’t completely abandoned that to the pile of “personal piety” like have so many other things. C’mon, someone out there must have heard a good five second snip about this in the past ten years. Right? Anyone? Bueller?