Catholic Sensibility

Imagine my surprise when the WordPress site stat page informed me that yesterday was the most popular day yet for Catholic Sensibility. Even beating my shoutout from Andrew Sullivan and my criticism of Miley Cyrus baring her back for Annie Leibowitz.

James, the youngest sibling of the Duchess of Cambridge, proclaimed the Scripture at the royal wedding yesterday. My wife was watching it on the telly and I even stopped what I was doing for a minute to pay attention. Funny how “Romans 12:1-2, 9-18,” when Googled, gives you this post at the top of its list.

Take that Hannah Montana. Thanks, Mr Middleton. Great rendering of the passage, by the way.

In sorting through old files, I ran across an article I penned for a conservative publication that was ultimately rejected. These days the conservatives seem to have given up on me, so I’ll post it here with the interest of sparking a discussion:

Few liturgical changes of the 1960’s were more noticeable than the “turning around” of altars, the reorientation of priests to face the people while presiding at Mass. There’s something of a clamor sounding these days to return to the past, citing everything from the problem of clergy who ham it up to the loss of reverence and awe in liturgy.

The church at my parish was built in 1964. In 1999 a renovation added a narthex on the east side, interior pathways, a baptismal font, and a chapel for Eucharistic reservation and daily Mass. A functional, long, and narrow nave was improved with more space, more light, and an opportunity for more fruitful liturgy.

I had assumed that the church had an altar at one end, choir loft at the other, and the people sat in between. However, the parishioners told me a more interesting story after I arrived. The founding pastor of the Iowa State Catholic Student Center had the first altar placed in the middle of the building. Two sets of seats faced each other with the altar in between. One Sunday he would celebrate Mass facing south across the altar from half the worshippers and facing the same direction as the other half—with his back to them. The next Sunday, he turned the opposite direction.

Today the antiphonal seating remains. The priest now actually faces ad orientem (to the east and toward the narthex) when praying at the altar. He neither faces the people nor has his back to them. Some of our new students and visitors find that a little disorienting. But of all possibilities our church gives us, I think it works the best.

One of the hallmarks of the Vatican II liturgy reforms was the so-called “turning around of the altars.” Before the council, a priest praying the Mass was not so much concerned with keeping his back turned to the laity as he was praying a common direction with them. Today a certain misperception persists: Vatican II was all about re-directing the priest to face the people. Wrong.

Why did things change and why should things stay as they are? Let me offer four reasons.

(more…)

Australian blogger David Timbs comments on the application (or redefinition) of martyrdom to apply to our two most recent popes. Read over the essay, if you would, please, and offer comments there or here. I’m interested to know what others think. Mr Timbs leaves off with a few questions:

Is the peculiar manner in which the current language of martyrdom expresses itself merely the product of a deep resentment at the failure of a thin-skinned and immature elite to engage with challenges outside the certainties and privilege of the institution, and rather than face such flaws to construct instead ‘the world’ as a persecuting body, martyrs to which cannot help but emerge?

Is it indicative of a mentality that betrays an inability to give a credible and adult account of itself before ‘the other’ and be confident in that?

Was it Flannery O’Connor who attributed to one of her fictional characters, “She could be a martyr if they killed her quick”? The context, if I recall, was that the person in question felt herself far from saintly material.

If the Catholic Right is intent on redefining martyrdom, it might be that many heroic people who never spilled a drop of blood are also martyrs. Or is it neo-martyr? Lay people care for dying parents, ailing spouses, children with disabilities or just plain bad luck. Lay people labor as social workers, hospital personnel, counselors, justice advocates, missioners, church volunteers, and such. In my eye these people are saints. But they are not martyrs.

The same goes for popes. And other heroes of celebrity. It may indeed be saintly to suffer as a direct result of one’s faith. But wouldn’t it be as saintly to suffer real privations–physical or emotional or spiritual–to maintain one’s marriage, one’s family, or the basic dignity of suffering people.

Perhaps the problem is that fewer people seem to listen to the pope these days. He has good things to say, his apologists remind us. Perhaps if he were a saint instead of a pope. Perhaps if he were a martyr instead of a saint…

Overstatement makes us feel good. (My team will win the Series/ the Cup this year!) It also cheers and emboldens one’s followers. We need look no further than the American political landscape (My opponents are socialists/Nazis!) for that, do we?

But such overstatement does no service to the truth. As far as John Paul II is concerned, he suffered physically in his life, to be sure. Like Kevin Castro. Our late pope was also ridiculed by commentators for his public positions on moral issues. Like President Obama. Was JPII a martyr? I think not. Pope Benedict? Likewise no. The closest thing we had to a martyred pope would have been Pius XII if he had died for standing up to fascism.

If you ask me, I’d rather stick to the traditional definition of martyrdom. Let the living be engaged and judged on the merits of their whole life–that’s a broader and more truthful perspective. Let the memory and veneration of real martyrs not be sullied with the political truthiness of the current generation. Let saints be saints. Let martyrs be venerated for their real blood. And let celebrities fade from view.

Harry has taken me to task for my representation of the story of a pastor denying a lad First Communion. I welcome such interaction. It’s good for all of us, and good for this blog. I put speculation into some posts here, and readers, especially ones who don’t know me well, are quite right to take my opinions with a grain of salt.

In the original post, I commented on three things: a secular news story, a reaction on the most-traveled Catholic blog, and a quote from the US bishops.

When a person is quoted for having been offered Anointing instead of First Communion, my comments were limited to what I did know: clergy citing canon law. This was a misuse of canon law and betrayed an ignorance of sacramental liturgy as well as the pastoral response of the Church to people with disabilities.

Father Z and his followers may have never encountered such a situation. It’s not common for people with cerebral palsy to surf the internet and engage in the Catholic blogozone. If all your experience is with church texts, then you may well be out of your element in the discussion. So part of my post was to offer a serious caveat. Psst: WDTPRS is not 100% reliable.

Now, it might be that the pastor in question was absolutely sincere. But as a parish priest, he doesn’t get a pass for sincerity when his real flaw may be a lack of information. It might also be that he knew of the diocesan initiative for people with disabilities. If so, I’ve offered no speculation on that point or others. He cited canon law. That was mistaken. I commented on that.

I was also careful to comment in the original post that the family seemed misinformed about Anointing, so it might be that their formation on other sacramental points was lacking as well. As Joyce put it, if they had known to contact a diocesan representative who could have assisted them–and initiated the contact months ago–bad feelings and publicity would have been totally avoided. This would have been a feel-good feature in the diocesan organ instead of an international incident.

I’ll repeat my own principles, which I attempt to follow.

I assume what are presented as facts on reputable web sites are indeed facts. Secular stories in particular tend to get religion wrong. So I will often fill in appropriate details a religion reporter might miss.

If I have nothing to add to a story, I don’t often post it. I have no desire to run a “ripped from the headlines” site. There are plenty of such sites in the Catholic blogosphere, and most readers here know where to find them.

I do try to decline from labeling people and calling names. I do fail at this on occasion. And there are times when, by labeling actions, it seems I am calling someone a name. I can make two appeals: your reading comprehension and that I am an affirming parent (“You are a good person, but your action was wrong.”)

I think tart conversations are interesting, and I admit I post provocatively (in favor of the conversation) in order to spark a dialogue, especially with some of my more conservative readers. People don’t always take the poke, and as a result most posts cycle to the bottom of the silt here, as it were.

Long-time readers will know that if I have misrepresented the situation, I have no problem offering a retraction and an apology.

To conclude: thanks for the many comments over the years, especially the ones with different views.

Justice Anne Burke penned a Chicago Trib  essay on the Philadelphia cover-up scandal.

A scene from Ireland:

It was easy to spot the first morning when I made my way to daily Mass. Since it was Lent, I expected to see an enlarged congregation. I found the opposite.

My hosts told me that the abuse scandal in the church in Ireland and the poor response from the Vatican seemed to have sealed the fate of Catholicism in Ireland for some time to come. A government investigation into the horror of Irish clerical abuse — both sexual and physical — brought everything to the surface. All the usual elements were there, thanks to the Irish bishops — cover-up, lying, bullying, threats, the hiding of evidence, the sealing of witness testimony, and most of all the willingness to let the guilty clergy get away with the crime.

Do the bishops, jetting to and from Rome, returning to sit in easy chairs, thumbing through the Office, drinking brandy and smoking cigars … do they realize their collective actions have brought the antigospel to Boston, Philadelphia, Ireland, and other places?

More from the once-interim chair of the USCCB National Review Board:

As Catholics we know that we must act with wisdom — we must forgive, but not forget. We must exercise good judgment and courage — both gifts of the Holy Spirit given at the time of confirmation. This means that we must be blunt with the Holy Father and the other men who continue by either business as usual, or misguided loyalty, to permit the unspeakable to occur.

Blunt, eh?

Does that mean we should ask a different question when we see our local bishop or vicar general? “What have you done, today and concretely, to safeguard children and end the abuse of your brother priests? Have you sent a card to a survivor? Written a letter to a family? Visited and prayed with a victim? Phoned Cardinal Rigali to chide him for boneheaded actions?

Preaching the gospel is hard work. Evangelization happens too often in a trickle. But the converse is not true. Arrogance and alienation will empty the Church like pulling a bathtub plug. When the bishops get that, we’ll know they’ve turned the corner.

Meanwhile, we don’t need them, really. I mean: they’ll still get appointed and ride circuit to do confirmations and ordinations and such. But they’ve placed themselves at the fringes of the spiritual life of the Church. Other people will take their place in the pulpits and altars and in the loft and in the pews. Whether he realizes it or not, Cardinal Rigali is sitting on the front steps

This is a heavily footnoted section with more than just references. So as not to chop up the text, I’ll leave the full notes at the end of today’s paragraph:

5. Inculturation thus understood has its place in worship as in other areas of the life of the church.¹⁴ It constitutes one of the aspects of the inculturation of the Gospel, which calls for true integration¹⁵ in the life of faith of each people of the permanent values of a culture, rather than their transient expressions. It must, then, be in full solidarity with a much greater action, a unified pastoral strategy which takes account of the human situation.¹⁶ As in all forms of the work of evangelization, this patient and complex undertaking calls for methodical research and ongoing discernment.¹⁷ The inculturation of the Christian life and of liturgical celebrations must be the fruit of a progressive maturity in the faith of the people.¹⁸

Inculturation in liturgy must connect to the permanent, rather than the transient. Plus it needs to be part of a coordination in other aspects. well-discerned and researched. So far so good on this one.

14. Cf. Eastern Code of Canon Law, canon 584.2: “Evangelizatio gentium ita fiat, ut servata integritate fidei et morum Evangelium se in cultura singulorum populorum exprimere possit, in catechesi scilicet, in ritibus propriis liturgicis, in arte sacra in iure particulari ac demum in tota vita ecclesiali.”
15. Cf. Catechesi Tradendae, 53: “concerning evangelization in general, we can say that it is a call to bring the strength of the Gospel to the heart of culture and cultures…. It is in this way that it can propose to cultures the knowledge of the mystery hidden and help them to make of their own living tradition original expressions of life, celebration and Christian thought.”
16. Cf. Redemptoris Missio, 52: “Inculturation is a slow process covering the whole of missionary life and involves all who are active in the mission ad gentes and Christian communities in the measure that they are developing.” Discourse to Pontifical Council for Culture plenary assembly: “I strongly reaffirm the need to mobilize the whole church into a creative effort toward a renewed evangelization of both people and cultures. It is only by a joint effort that the church will be able to bring the hope of Christ into the heart of cultures and present- day ways of thinking.”
17. Cf. Pontifical Biblical Commission, Foi et culture a la lumiere de la Bible, 1981; and International Theological commission, “Faith and Inculturation, 1988.
18. Cf. John Paul II, Discourse to the Bishops of Zaire, April 12, 1983, No. 5: AAS 75 (1983), 620: “How is it that a faith which has truly matured, is deep and firm, does not succeed in expressing itself in a language, in a catechesis, in theological reflection, in prayer, in the liturgy, in art, in the institutions which are truly related to the African soul of your compatriots? There is the key to the important and complex question of the liturgy, to mention just one area. Satisfactory progress in this domain can only be the fruit of a progressive growth in faith, linked with spiritual discernment, theological clarity, a sense of the universal church.”

The Catholic blogosphere is no doubt rejoicing at this news. Cardinal George on it:

A Catholic priest’s inner life is governed by his promises, motivated by faith and love, to live chastely as a celibate man and to obey his bishop. Breaking either promise destroys his vocation and wounds the church.

That’s part of the story, but not the most important aspect. I have little patience for religious leaders attempting disguise as celebrities. No leader, however much beloved or entrenched, is indispensable.

It’s understandable that mortal human beings seek for some sign of God, some incarnation of the Divine in their midst. It’s why Christians have sacraments, and why leaders are humble servants. Parishioners, understandably, are on the march. The way I read it, they’ve received a lot more care, attention, and discernment on their next pastor than nearly any other parish I’ve ever heard about.

One of the suspended pastor’s colleagues:

He’s upset, angry, discouraged, disappointed, disrespected. He says he’s never felt this disrespected in his 36 years in the ministry.

Time to grow up, I’d say. Readers know I’m no fan of Cardinal George, but I think this statement nails it:

You are not a victim of anyone or anything other than your own statements.

The remaining five sections of the introduction to VL consist of the CDWDS’s “Preliminary Observations.” As we run through them, we can ask: are they accurate? An inaccurate diagnosis may well lead to principles unsupported by what is true.

First up, based on Sacrosanctum Concilium, Pope John Paul offered a definition of inculturation:

4. The constitution Sacrosanctum Concilium spoke of the different forms of liturgical adaptation. (SC 37-40) Subsequently the magisterium of the church has used the term inculturation to define more precisely “the incarnation of the Gospel in autonomous cultures and at the same time the introduction of these cultures into the life of the church.” (John Paul II, encyclical Slavorum Apostoli, 1985, No. 21; his 1987 discourse to the Pontifical Council for Culture plenary assembly, no, 5) Inculturation signifies “an intimate transformation of the authentic cultural values by their integration into Christianity and the implantation of Christianity into different human cultures.” (John Paul II, encyclical Redemptoris Missio, no. 52)

Inculturation, then, is a dialogue. It presumes a mutuality of enrichment: the Gospel borrows means and expressions from the culture, which is, in turn, transformed by the Gospel. The Church rejects the term “adaptation,” which not only gives the sense of something transitory, but also implies the Church changes to adapt to the culture, and no movement on the part of the culture or its people is expected:

The change of vocabulary is understandable, even in the liturgical sphere. The expression adaptation, taken from missionary terminology, could lead one to think of modifications of a somewhat transitory and external nature. (Cf. ibid and Synod of Bishops, Final Report Exeunte Coetu Secundo, 1985, D 4.) The term inculturation is a better expression to designate a double movement: “By inculturation, the church makes the Gospel incarnate in different cultures and at the same time introduces peoples, together with their cultures, into her own community.” (Redemptoris Missio, no. 52) On the one hand the penetration of the Gospel into a given socio-cultural milieu “gives inner fruitfulness to the spiritual qualities and gifts proper to each people …, strengthens these qualities, perfects them and restores them in Christ.”(Gaudium et Spes 58)

The optimism of Vatican II, especially as it was incarnated in Gaudium et Spes, leads one to think that Christian-compatible values encountered in non-European cultures serve well to be incorporated into the Church and its liturgy:

On the other hand, the church assimilates these values, when they are compatible with the Gospel, “to deepen understanding of Christ’s message and give it more effective expression in the liturgy and in the many different aspects of the life of the community of believers.” (Gaudium et Spes 58) This double movement in the work of inculturation thus expresses one of the component elements of the mystery of the incarnation.(Cf. John Paul II, apostolic exhortation Catechesi Tradendae, 1979, No. 53)

Nothing really surprising here. John Paul II built on the foundation of the Vatican II. The Church affirms a mutual development of its own liturgy in the context of a non-European culture. So far, so good.

I ran across this piece on a Vietnamese bishop who was arrested for “baptizing” people. I suppose it’s slightly heartening to know that scoffers are less informed about the Mass than Catholics who have been denied the Eucharist.

The bishop protested, denying that he had “baptized people,” he explained that he had only helped the faithful to reconcile themselves with God. “Before eating – he said – you wash your hands. Likewise, before attending the Mass, we wash ourselves, reconciling ourselves with God.”

Possibly the government officials witnessed the Easter sprinkling rite.

Under the subheading “Nature of this Instruction,” the CDWDS explains it will take as a starting point the treatment of inculturation at Vatican II, to set out a more precise interpretation and plan for 1994 and beyond, to examine theological principles, to assess the current state of affairs, and, within the bounds of law, make necessary arrangements.

3. By order of the supreme pontiff, the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments has prepared this instruction: The norms for the adaptation of the liturgy to the temperament and conditions of different peoples, which were given in Articles 37-40 of the constitution Sacrosanctum Concilium, are here defined; certain principles expressed in general terms in those articles are explained more precisely, the directives are set out in a more appropriate way and the order to be followed is clearly set out, so that in future this will be considered the only correct procedure. Since the theological principles relating to questions of faith and inculturation have still to be examined in depth, this congregation wishes to help bishops and episcopal conferences to consider or put into effect, according to the law, such adaptations as are already foreseen in the liturgical books; to re-examine critically arrangements that have already been made; and if in certain cultures pastoral need requires that form of adaptation of the liturgy which the constitution calls “more profound” and at the same time considers “more difficult,” to make arrangements for putting it into effect in accordance with the law.

Curia watchers will note: “in future this will be considered the only correct procedure.” You have here the first evidence in a liturgical document that the CDWDS is interested in more than just implementation, but that they will determine what is “right” and “correct.” I don’t know how that takes place with competence and without consultation. I’m thinking of the people on the ground in mission lands primarily, but also bishops and pastors who struggle to re-evangelize the West.

I’d say there are a lot of questions about this. Can the curia do this? Should they? We should be talking about directives that are effective in spreading the gospel and respectful of the liturgy. As Liam pointed out yesterday, how these are defined: this is the challenge.

What do the readers see?

For staff prayer this morning, I assembled the following psalm and responsory:

Psalm 105:1-7

Give thanks to the LORD, invoke his name;
make known among the peoples his deeds!
Sing praise, play music;
proclaim all his wondrous deeds!
Glory in his holy name;
rejoice, O hearts that seek the LORD!
Rely on the mighty LORD;
constantly seek his face.
Recall the wondrous deeds he has done,
his signs and his words of judgment,
You descendants of Abraham his servant,
offspring of Jacob the chosen one!
The LORD is our God
who rules the whole earth.

Responsory:

Grant us the grace to remain in you, O Lord, as you remain in us.

Grant us the grace to remain in you, O Lord, as you remain in us.

You, sweetness itself, stooped to join yourself with our bitterness. (St Catherine of Siena)

Grant us the grace to remain in you, O Lord, as you remain in us.
 
Those who gain the victory, I will feed from the tree of life which grows in the garden of God. (Roman Rite)

Grant us the grace to remain in you, O Lord, as you remain in us.

Lucy looked hard at the garden and saw that it was not really a garden at all but a whole world, with its own rivers and woods and sea and mountains. But they were not strange: she knew them all. (CS Lewis)

Grant us the grace to remain in you, O Lord, as you remain in us.
 
Today, there opens for us a door once closed, which a serpent barred in a woman:
And so there gleams the flower of our Lady, brilliant in the dawn. (Hildegard von Bingen)

Grant us the grace to remain in you, O Lord, as you remain in us.

And you, Jesus, good Lord, are you not also Mother? Would a mother not be one who, like a hen, gathers her young beneath her wings?(Anselm of Canterbury)

Grant us the grace to remain in you, O Lord, as you remain in us.

But the rich food on which we live demands more praise than tongues can give. (Isaac Watts)

Grant us the grace to remain in you, O Lord, as you remain in us.

Interesting story.

Father Z even backs up the bone-headed notion that human knowledge is ordinarily required for a person to benefit from sacramental life.

It’s even more interesting that the priest offered Anointing of the Sick instead of the Eucharist. Grandmother Irma Castro is also behind the times:

That is the anointing they give you before death. That was very offensive.

An accurate knowledge of sacramental theology isn’t a prerequisite for being a good Catholic. Or even being ordained, it would seem.

Still, it’s a tough situation.

Anointing of the Sick would have been called for when the lad was an infant. Like baptism, the faith of the parents is sufficient for requesting the grace of Christ through the sacraments. If he was in any danger of death, then not only baptism, but confirmation and Eucharist should have been a serious consideration.

The Orthodox, like Catholics, have entirely valid sacraments, and they distribute Communion to infants.

The US Bishops weighed in on this issue sixteen years ago; clergy do not interpret canon law on their own initiative, but consult widely to make a proper discernment:

(T)he criterion for reception of holy communion is the same for persons with developmental and mental disabilities as for all persons, namely, that the person be able to distinguish the Body of Christ from ordinary food, even if this recognition is evidenced through manner, gesture, or reverential silence rather than verbally. Pastors are encouraged to consult with parents, those who take the place of parents, diocesan personnel involved with disability issues, psychologists, religious educators, and other experts in making their judgment. If it is determined that a parishioner who is disabled is not ready to receive the sacrament, great care is to be taken in explaining the reasons for this decision. Cases of doubt should be resolved in favor of the right of the baptized person to receive the sacrament. The existence of a disability is not considered in and of itself as disqualifying a person from receiving the eucharist.

The Catholic blogozone doesn’t seem to be quite sure where to land on this one. Their biggest guru says no and dithers when he’s confronted with what the bishops say. People type, “I guess the priest must be right,” but the subtitle hangs with it, unwritten: but darned if I know why.

Any thoughts? Any actual experiences?

The WSJ thinks there’s something to the Brits’ royal wedding upstaging the JP2 beatification. I’m not so sure. The events are two days apart, aren’t they? True believers of the Catholic strain would flock to Rome in any event, wouldn’t they? Plans for the JP2 crowd have been downgraded from a million to less than 800K. Are one in five or even four potential pilgrims really lured by Kate riding in a horse drawn carriage wearing a dress with a train as long as a magna cappa?

My suspicion: once they found out all those bloggers were going to descend on Rome, sensible Catholics made other plans.

Seriously: it’s the economy.

The NCReg calls out Cardinal Justin Rigali for suspending priests with credible abuse allegations. The “equal treatment” protest rings hollow to me. People who misbehave should be treated differently than the virtuous.

Many of the men who were placed on administrative leave were accused of boundary violations, not sexual abuse. However, because they were lumped together with those who were accused of sexual abuse, the public automatically assumes that these men are also accused of sexual crimes.

Many, but not all. And some of the accused were likely accused of both boundary violations and abuse.

And because I don’t think the public has ever seen what these priests are accused of, I’m not sure reasonable assumptions can be made of them. People are accused of misconduct every day. Some are innocent and they work hard to become exonerated.

What’s happening in Philadelphia is different. A highly influential cardinal and his predecessor(s) have been found to cover up sex crimes. The heat is on the cardinal, most of all. This is as it should be.

Ms Desmond tries to play the shell game with her readers:

I don’t want the Church to go on a “witch hunt” for homosexuals among the clergy, but the Church needs to do a better job of identifying homosexual men before they enter the seminary. While having same-sex attractions should not disqualify a man from seeking holy orders, it should be determined whether the attractions are deep-seated or transitory. A man with deep-seated same-sex attractions identifies himself as a “gay man” and sees nothing wrong with homosexual activity. This type of man is more likely to present a risk.

The Church indeed needs better discernment, but the problem is with those who are forwarded for consideration to the Congregation of Bishops. There is no way that every abuser can be purged from every group of believers. But lay people have lost faith in the ability and the will of the bishops to reform the system–starting with themselves.

All the suspended Philadelphia clergy had sound allegations brought against them. What is hinted at is that these suspensions were overdue. Recent history has shown that other high-profile bishops in Chicago and Santa Rosa (among other places) have dithered and allowed abusers access to children in spite of serious and professional assessments that would indicate separation, suspension, and other actions.

Apologists who insist on deflecting the issues to teachers, Scout leaders, homosexuals, and priests, simple don’t get it.

Ms Desmond is on the right track in criticizing the Philadelphia archbishop. Too bad she has the wrong cause.

But it is illustrative that Cardinal Rigali has landed in a position where the second-guessing is coming fast and furious from critics on all sides. How long do you think the pope will let him continue to twist in the wind? Or is it just that no other bishop wants to succeed him? You can bet that if it were liberation theology instead of moral mismanagement, they’d be chopping up the archdiocese or appointing a coadjutor right quick. That this doesn’t happen is yet another symptom of the toxic bureaucracy that has metastasized under Pope Benedict. I’m sure all those uppity German bishops and theologians are drawing lots of attention right now. My advice to the pope if he has to choose between attending to people who want a conversation or people who are hiding predators and trashing episcopal credibility: ignore the first group, attend to the latter.

Pope John Paul gets a reference in his approval of inculturation as a principle of liturgical reform:

2. In his apostolic letter Vicesimus Quintus Annus, the Holy Father Pope John Paul II described the attempt to make the liturgy take root in different cultures as an important task for liturgical renewal.[cf. no, 16] This work was foreseen in earlier instructions and in liturgical books, and it must be followed up in the light of experience, welcoming where necessary cultural values “which are compatible with the true and authentic spirit of the liturgy, always respecting the substantial unity of the Roman rite as expressed in the liturgical books.”[cf no. 16]

Lived experience with the liturgy must be applied to reform. In other words, if liturgical aspects work or don’t work for the cause of evangelization, they must be applied. Faith and belief should always trump the particulars of liturgy.

At the same time, John Paul wants the substance of the Roman Rite to remain as a substrate. That is where the discussion and occasional tussling occur. What is the substantial unity of the Roman Rite? Certainly the seven sacraments and the structure of their liturgies. Some might say translations, but I wouldn’t–and I wouldn’t be alone.

What would you readers see as areas of “substantial unity” and what can be adapted for the sake of belief?