Catholic Sensibility

I’m sure Elizabeth Johnson’s publisher is happy at the prospect of a sales uptick with Quest for the Living God: Mapping the Frontiers in the Theology of God. I’m not well-read on Elizabeth Johnson. Maybe I should take Jim Martin’s recommendations to heart.

Have the bishops realized their approach to theology is not much different from a reviewer’s? I’ve written reviews for almost twenty years in print and online. I listen to a disk or read a book. I relate the content briefly. I explore one or two points of possible interest to readers. I give a recommendation or not. I generally don’t contact the creator.

First, this is sort of an enemy-of-my-enemy situation. People don’t like Cardinal Rigali, Cardinal Law and other bishops. The bishops don’t like Professor Johnson. People figure they might like Professor Johnson. The book gets read.

Next, isn’t this just a tomayto/tomahto kerfuffle? The bishops say Professor Johnson doesn’t grasp basic theology. She says they don’t understand her book. Good communication, that. As a result, more people will buy and read the book. She will continue to write and teach. The bishops will continue penning press releases at which some will cluck. Does that reinforce or enhance their teaching authority?

Is it plausible for a bishops’ committee to interview a theologian and discuss content? I don’t have the answer to that. It’s sure not the Vatican way. I will remark that institutional secrecy hasn’t done a lot of good for the Church recently.

Who knows? Maybe Archbishop Wuerl and his confreres on the committee really liked the book and if they gave it a positive review, they would sink it. There must be a better way to enhance the pursuit of good theology. If the bishops have abdicated, it looks like it’s been left to the laity.

83. When they exist, proper readings are given for celebrations of the Saints, that is, biblical passages about the Saint or the mystery that the Mass is celebrating. Even in the case of a memorial these readings must take the place of the weekday readings for the same day. This Order of Readings makes explicit note of every case of proper readings on a memorial.

In some cases there are accommodated readings, those, namely, that bring out some particular aspect of a Saint’s spiritual life or work. Use of such readings does not seem binding, except for compelling pastoral reasons. For the most part references are given to readings in the Commons in order to facilitate choice. But these are merely suggestions: in place of an accommodated reading or the particular reading proposed from a Common, any other reading from the Commons referred to may be selected.

The first concern of a priest celebrating with a congregation is the spiritual benefit of the faithful and he will be careful not to impose his personal preference on them. Above all he will make sure not to omit too often or without sufficient cause the readings assigned for each day in the weekday Lectionary: the Church’s desire is that a more lavish table of the word of God be spread before the faithful. [SC 51]

There are also common readings, that is, those placed in the Commons either for some determined class of Saints (martyrs, virgins, pastors) or for the Saints in general. Because in these cases several texts are listed for the same reading, it will be up to the priest to choose the one best suited to those listening.

In all celebrations of Saints the readings may be taken not only from the Commons to which the references are given in each case, but also from the Common of Men and Women Saints, whenever there is special reason for doing so.

84. For celebrations of the Saints the following should be observed:

1. On solemnities and feasts the readings must be those that are given in the Proper or in the Commons. For solemnities and feasts of the General Roman Calendar proper readings are always assigned.
2. On solemnities inscribed in particular calendars, three readings are to be assigned, unless the Conference of Bishops has decreed that there are to be only two readings. [GIRM] The first reading is from the Old Testament (but during the Easter season, from the Acts of the Apostles or the Book of Revelation); the second, from an Apostle; the third, from the Gospels.
3. On feasts and memorials, which have only two readings, the first reading can be chosen from either the Old Testament or from an Apostle; the second is from the Gospels. Following the Church’s traditional practice, however, the first reading during the Easter season is to be taken from an Apostle, the second, as far as possible, from the Gospel of John.

Retired Rep Bart Stupak tells it. Curious: Senate Republicans killed a “technical corrections bill,” leaving the executive order the only way to go.

Here’s a question: does a good Catholic have to uphold the right to life at every opportunity, including the ones finessed behind closed doors?

The US Bishops couldn’t come out of this looking any worse.

Priests and liturgists are confronted with choices at daily Mass, usually the intersection of the cycle of saints with the readings of ordinary time:

82. The arrangement of weekday readings provides texts for every day of the week throughout the year. In most cases, therefore, these readings are to be used on their assigned days, unless a solemnity, a feast, or else a memorial with proper readings occurs. [107]

In using the Order of Readings for weekdays attention must be paid to whether one reading or another from the same biblical book will have to be omitted because of some celebration occurring during the week. With the arrangement of readings for the entire week in mind, the priest in that case arranges to omit the less significant passages or combines them in the most appropriate manner with other readings, if they contribute to an integral view of a particular theme.

I could respect a decision of conscience like this or this if either diocese were willing to own up to the real reason old-style adoption services were being dropped. In my own diocese, a Catholic Charities counsellor reported helping in five adoptions in seven years. We opted out of adoption services, too. Why? Because the workload is too small to justify the effort. Other competent agencies do adoption, and many Iowa Catholics are referred to them.

With all the handwringing about children getting placed in homes of SSA people, dioceses have a clear action to take instead of giving in to the hermeneutic of subtraction*. Work the supply side: rustle up a few hundred thousand parents.

Instead, our prelates seem to zero in on GOP talking points. Change is bad bad bad. Just in case one of us owns an apartment building, we don’t want gay sex going on inside it. And this effort is dressed up in some phantom support for marriage.

There are ways of making principled stands without discrimination, alienation, and such. It takes creative thinking. And hard work. I’d like to think the bishops as a group defend my marriage and promote adoption. But I know they don’t.

If they did, Catholic Charities adoption divisions would be reworked to promote adoption as an option among the millions of Catholic families. Well over a hundred-thousand American kids are free to be adopted right now. Another 400,000 live in foster care and group homes waiting for the legal complications to shake out. If Catholics had something relevant to say about who adopts, then certainly traditionally married partners would step up to the plate in droves.

And as for defending marriage, bishops and pastors need whole new ways of drawing young adults into the Church, developing ministries to couples in the early stages of marriage, and spending energy to promote the Marriage Encounter movement and its offshoot efforts.

Michael O’Loughlin at America:

The church is digging in its heels, unable to comprehend this sudden change in societal norms. Despite the campaigns, statements, and preaching, lay Catholics lead the nation in support of gay rights. At some point, something has to give. Will the church change its stance on homosexuality? Of course not. Catholicism is the largest denomination in the US, but it is still a tiny sliver of the global church, and attitudes elsewhere, especially in the growing hotspots of global Catholicism, remain rigidly conservative. But church leaders may want to reconsider where they focus their limited time, energy, and resources.

It’s clear many bishops don’t give a hoot about adoption or marriage. Cardinal Rigali has come down on the side of protecting the institution. Many of his brothers have joined him over the years. To these guys, adoption isn’t a ministry. Marriage isn’t something to support directly. These efforts have morphed into political wedges used (and used very poorly) to stamp feet and pout in the public square. But over the past forty years, the number of babies available to the Church for adoption has grown vanishingly small. Time to retool and address the real situation of the poor and needy. Not the divisive political talking points of the proud and arrogant. Hundreds of thousands of Catholic marriages are in difficulty. They are not going to heal because a smaller number of SSA couples want to commit for life.

* Subtracting the aspirations or rights of others.

81. When a choice is allowed between alternative texts, whether they are fixed or optional, the first consideration must be the best interest of those taking part. It may be a matter of using the easier texts or the one more relevant to the assembled congregation or, as pastoral advantage may suggest, of repeating or replacing a text that is assigned as proper to one celebration and optional to another.

The issue may arise when it is feared that some text will create difficulties for a particular congregation or when the same text would have to be repeated within a few days, as on a Sunday and on a day during the week following. 

 

This last point could arise two or three times a year. The overall guiding principle would be to ask what advances the community in holiness,

The line from today’s psalm is perhaps one of the ten most familiar passages in the Psalter:

As the deer longs for streams of water, so my soul longs for you, O God. (Ps 42:2)

But this lament, probably a single piece with Psalm 43, offers a thrice-repeated refrain:

Why are you downcast, my soul; why do you groan within me? Wait for God, whom I shall praise again, my savior and my God. (Ps 42:6, 11; Ps 43:5)

In musical settings, and even in the Lectionary, the preference seems not to be with the natural refrain of the psalm, but with the tender image of the deer. I recommend the full Psalm 42-43 for reflection. It has a lot to offer: tears, pilgrimage, roaring flood, mountain escape, God’s light of truth. I can imagine a three-movement symphony ending with a depiction of the light of God enveloping a loyal believer.

Another area where ministers have “freedom of choice,” as the GILM says, is in the option of longer or shorter versions of texts:

80. A pastoral criterion must also guide the choice between the longer and shorter forms of the same text. The main consideration must be the capacity of the hearers to listen profitably either to the longer or to the shorter reading; or to listen to a more complete text that will be explained through the homily.

 

Hopefully the guiding principles are indeed pastoral, and not finishing the Mass in N. minutes.

On the legal front, the Archdiocese of Philadelphia has some complaints. Defense counsel getting into shouting matches with a judge: how’s that bluster working for them, I wonder? I thought we only saw that stuff on tv. “Blistering” is how the NYT reporter called it. A more detailed piece is here. Conspiracy charges are being brought into the case. I notice that it may not come to trial for about a year. That’s not going to be good. Internet chatter, probably more investigations in other dioceses, will probably keep the issue at a low but distinctive hum for months. Then we’ll see the dredging up all the details in 2012. Do you see any of the suspended clergy getting back into ministry any time soon?

To the archdiocese there: please, don’t taint other Catholics by claiming the legal system is anti-Catholic. The justice arm of society is anti-criminal, and if the criminals happen to be Catholic, then they must be treated firmly, fairly, and with justice.

Speculation on dotCommonweal is vigorous, too. Conspiracy means somebody is going to follow the legal trail to others not-yet indicted. Will Msgr. Lynn take the fall for higher-ups? Cardinal Rigali is at the end of his active life as a bishop. Him too? Better him than some of his fiftysomething protégés, right?

Some survivor allies are going to want blood. I don’t see a cardinal trading red for prison orange. But I can’t escape the notion that this is going to play out far worse than in 2002. Not only do the laity know that the bishops now know, but we know that the bishops broke promises in Chicago, Santa Rosa, and in a big way, in Philadelphia. I can imagine that some American bishops are seething over Rigali’s mismanagement. They should be mad. I can imagine there’s also a scramble in two-hundred-some dioceses to double-check the lists of accused clergy and make sure nobody’s on the loose today.

I was thinking about the motto on the Pennsylvania Quarter from 1999, especially “virtue.” The staff in the woman’s left hand symbolizes justice. Unlike 2002, which was a journalism investigation, this one could get quite serious with regard to consequences for those involved. Sex acts have landed people in jail, certainly. But those who “get it” know that for the last decade, the problem has been with mismanagement on the part of bishops. A few bishops have been humbled by their own tussles with the law, but nobody’s gone to jail for what most suspect is happening: conspiracy.

I notice the USCCB, through Archbishop Dolan, has a statement of sorts up. It’s not going to be enough. In fact, it might be hurting the cause of episcopal rehabilitation.

I believe that the bishops want this scandal to be over. I also believe that the bishops want to protect victims, and I’m sure that almost all of them find the notion of their brother priests having sex with children is incomprehensible and heinous.

Unfortunately, I also believe that a number of bishops are arrogant, aristocratic, and narcissistic. They would prefer their errors stay out of public view. Stepping outside the lines of the prelatial culture might endanger their upward mobility.

Too many bishops have forsaken the motto-worthy virtue touted by a secular commonwealth. Their croziers are bent or limp compared to the staff of justice. Even before this tainted generation of leadership is gone, we lay people have to find the serenity to move on and rebuild the Church where we can.

Getting angry at bishops isn’t going to be productive in the long run for us. Unfortunately, today, I’m fresh out of ideas. This is a sad and long Lent not only for Philadelphia, but for the Church. Thanks to the so-called orthodox reforms of the past generation, we are burdened by bishops out of time, out of tune, and perhaps, out of legal options. The damage to Church unity is incalculable. The lack of creativity, contrition, courage, and flexibility will continue to haunt these prelates. And that’s a tragedy, because the Catholic Church needs good bishops. None of us are sure we have them. The antigospel is ascendant, it would seem.

In the US, this is hardly ever an issue, but the GILM discusses what is to be done if, for pastoral reasons, one of the two readings before the Gospel must be omitted.

79. In Masses to which three readings are assigned, all three are to be used. If, however, for pastoral reasons the Conference of Bishops has given permission for two readings only to be used, [Inaestimabile Donum 1] the choice between the two first readings is to be made in such a way as to safeguard the Church’s intent to instruct the faithful more completely in the mystery of salvation. Thus, unless the contrary is indicated in the text of the Lectionary, the reading to be chosen as the first reading is the one that is more closely in harmony with the Gospel, or, in accord with the intent just mentioned, the one that is more helpful toward a coherent catechesis over an extended period, or that preserves the semicontinuous reading of some biblical book. [106]

The 106th note gives a concrete example:

For example: in Lent the continuity of the Old Testament readings corresponds to the unfolding of the history of salvation; the Sundays in Ordinary Time provide the semicontinuous reading of one of the Letters of the Apostles. In these cases it is right that the pastor of souls choose one or other of the readings in a systematic way over a series of Sundays, so that he may establish a coherent plan for catechesis. It is not right to read indiscriminately on one day from the Old Testament, on another from the Letter of an Apostle, without any orderly plan for the texts that follow.

It’s a lot of fuss devoted to a situation I would rack my brain for which to come up with a justification. My advice: read the whole given Lectionary.

The first apostle beyond Judah? It wasn’t Paul. It was the companion of Jesus from today’s gospel reading:

Many of the Samaritans of that town began to believe in him because of the word of the woman who testified, “He told me everything I have done.” (John 4:39)

It was as the Lord intended, given his Last Supper prayer from later in the gospel:

I pray not only for them, but also for those who will believe in me through their word, so that they may all be one, as you, Father, are in me and I in you, that they also may be in us, that the world may believe that you sent me. (John 17:20-21)

From the pen of Karol Wojtyla:

It joined us together, the well;
the well led me into you.
No one between us but light
deep in the well, the pupil of the eye
set in an orbit of stones.

Within your eyes, I,
drawn by the well,
am enclosed.

78. The Order of Readings sometimes leaves it to the celebrant to choose between alternative texts or to choose one from the several listed together for the same reading. The option seldom exists on Sundays, solemnities, or feasts, in order not to obscure the character proper to the particular liturgical season or needlessly interrupt the semicontinuous reading of some biblical book. On the other hand, the option is given readily in celebrations of the Saints, in ritual Masses, Masses for various needs and occasions, votive Masses, and Masses for the dead.

These options, together with those indicated in the General Instruction of the Roman Missal and the Ordo cantus Missae, [103] have a pastoral purpose. In arranging the liturgy of the word, then, the priest should “consider the general spiritual good of the congregation rather than his personal outlook. He should be mindful that the choice of texts is to be made in harmony with the ministers and others who have a role in the celebration and should listen to the opinions of the faithful in what concerns them more directly.” [104]

There’s a lot to lament in the whole tale of the movement to put a wall up around Arizona. Immigrants, regardless of legal status, have always enhanced our country’s strength. Newcomers provide fresh vigor and ideas.

Shuttered Catholic parishes have learned (or not) the price for declining to evangelize and court members new or returning. And as for criminals, well … I can think of a few citizen bankers who, by their absence, might make the US a better country. We can’t really deport Greenspan, Geithner, and their buddies on Wall Street, can we? Let alone put them in jail. Silly acts always have consequences, either planned or unplanned. The rich and powerful can sometimes pass those consequences on to others. Buck Showalter has the measure of it: you can’t buy smarts, but if you have a lot of money, you can sure hoodwink a lot of people into thinking you’ve got them.

The news that business interests have bit back on Arizona anti-immigrant sentiment isn’t surprising. No law was repealed, so it’s more spin than fact to say that the state’s efforts have softened. It’s a usual business practice: we’re up to our hips in it, so let’s stand pat and hope we don’t tumble into a hole.

So I’m going to enjoy watching how Big Bidness handles the anger stirred up the past few years. The smart guys now say we’re losing money on it. So maybe it will turn out to be a “dumb” idea, and everybody will calm down for the sake of the gravy train.

76. In readings for Sundays and solemnities, texts that present real difficulties are avoided for pastoral reasons. The difficulties may be objective, in that the texts themselves raise profound literary, critical, or exegetical problems; or the difficulties may lie, at least to a certain extent, in the ability of the faithful to understand the texts. But there could be no justification for concealing from the faithful the spiritual riches of certain texts on the grounds of difficulty if the problem arises from the inadequacy either of the religious education that every Christian should have or of the biblical formation that every pastor of souls should have. Often a difficult reading is clarified by its correlation with another in the same Mass.

I’ll admit this section was a bit of a puzzle for me. It is true that some “difficult” texts are avoided–not omitted entirely. A few years back, we covered three omitted psalms in the Liturgy of the Hours (GILH 131). The reason? Difficulty with the curses. GILH concedes that lay people and clergy should confront and understand difficult Biblical passages. Ignorance is not really an excuse.

One tamer example that comes to mind is when ancient cultural customs (such as the place of women) are touted as part of proper teaching. To a degree we can blame a fundamentalist mindset. And perhaps a selective approach to aspects that are attractive for some believers, but less laudatory for others.

77. The omission of verses in readings from Scripture has at times been the tradition of many liturgies, including the Roman liturgy. Admittedly such omissions may not be made lightly, for fear of distorting the meaning of the text or the intent and style of Scripture. Yet on pastoral grounds it was decided to continue the traditional practice in the present Order of Readings, but at the same time to ensure that the essential meaning of the text remained intact. One reason for the decision is that otherwise some texts would have been unduly long. It would also have been necessary to omit completely certain readings of high spiritual value for the faithful because those readings include some verse that is pastorally less useful or that involves truly difficult questions.

It’s not completely convincing this principle has been applied well in all circumstances. Advocates for women have noted the omission of the women who formed Timothy’s faith, to give one example of a passage that certainly wasn’t problematic for its length.

Regardless of how one feels about omitted verses or selections that should be omitted or edited, these two sections would probably attract a lion’s share of discussion if a Lectionary were to be reassembled today. The choices are not easy, to be sure.