I applaud the archbishop of Chicago for his remarks–I saw this piece (where else?) at the Bench.
When I was talking, I was speaking out of fear that I have for the church’s liberty and I was reaching for an analogy which was very inappropriate, for which I’m sorry. I didn’t realize the impact of what I was saying. … Sometimes fear is a bad motivation.
This is good.
The people in the culturewar trenches will be dismayed, but they really shouldn’t be. LGBT people are, for the most part, not unlike bishops. They’re just trying to do their jobs, live their lives, find their God, and sometimes they slip up like anybody else. Being able to offer an apology like this, without getting mealy-mouthed about it, is a good thing. A good start to reconciliation.
Chris Pett from Dignity Chicago:
This is not about power. This is not about control. This is about a church and its ministry and its shepherd. We believe in reconciliation. It’s not a time to continue to draw battle lines and go back to prior history. It’s time to say we’re grateful for that gift for someone realizing that he or she misspoke in a way that caused some harm and seek forgiveness.
One of the more interesting things about blogging is to observe how different people interact.
The campus ministry at Texas A&M has a significant web presence. I wish my own parish would emulate it. Marcel LeJeune posted his list of “Top 20 Catholic Bloggers.“
Yes, these are the blogs I read most. If I missed one you like, mention them in the combox. If you don’t like one of them, be nice about it. If you think one is better than the others, be nice about that as well.
I note that six of the twenty blogs are NCReg operations. Practically every one on his list is of the high hit count variety. The list leans conservative, political, and to news collectors. Greg Kandra, who is one of the most active collectors linked at the Bench.
And now I have one of these little badges, to boot.
Conversation ensued. Henry Karlson took great exception:
When will Catholic bloggers stop looking for and patting each other on the backs with such stupidity as “blog awards”?
I tend to agree. A few of us Catholic bloggers have been rather consistent in our disdain for popularity awards. Henry isn’t raining on Marcel and Greg’s parade just because he missed the gold star. He’s discussed it before.
So have I.
Henry is a serious writer and thinker. He came down hard in the comboxes on this yesterday. I think a lot of us have issues that push our buttons. Mine is adoption. Henry’s is awards. He really pricked Greg’s patience, who shut down the thread this morning:
Okay. Enough. This is getting ridiculous.
I’m closing down comments.
Henry is obviously angry because he didn’t make the list, and is lashing out at something that was relatively small and insignificant, and turning it into a federal case, complete with conspiracies and words like “propagandist.”
Sour grapes, anyone?
I think it’s more sour because somebody stood up to the jocks and cheerleaders. People have to remember: this isn’t (really) high school. We’re not afraid of the popular
kids people in the blogosphere. It’s always a dangerous thing to think we have somebody figured out, especially emotions, and especially without face-to-face contact.
My own take is that some Catholic bloggers treat their internet exercise as their own private club. There’s not a conspiracy in the sense of a criminal, intentional plot to circle the wagons around the bloggers outstanding for popularity, orthodoxy, and good-looking kids. But propaganda is not far off the mark.
I went to Marcel’s site and offered a comment. I wasn’t mean to anyone. I just said my piece. And the piece wasn’t approved.
Now, I’m good with people running their blogs however they want to. If Marcel thinks the impressionable Aggie Catholics down in Texas can’t handle a bit of friendly dissent from Iowa, he’s welcome to turn his comboxes into lovefests. (Chaste, of course.) (Good luck with that SEC thing, by the way.)
And Greg has perfect freedom to shut down his threads, too. Though I confess my surprise–he usually does it when people get nasty. Henry was on the Aggie Top 20 like a bulldog. And he did throw out that cruel epithet, “stupid.” But he wasn’t at all out of character. Of course, if he were a popular top-20 blogger, more people would know blogonarcissism wasn’t his thing.
I don’t think that asking questions about self-congratulatory behavior is ridiculous. I’m sure those questions are perceived as bothersome. But my sense of the discussion is that we thought some people were big enough to receive well-intended input, and consider expanding a view of the blogging world. Apparently not. I’m not going to speculate on people getting ticked off, annoyed, or feeling insulted. I’m just going to note what happened, and keep my deeper speculation to myself.
Speaking personally, I’d rather read a good writer than a good reporter. When I read print media, I preferred in-depth features to headlines. Greg Kandra, for example, blogs the way a media journalist would blog. He collects stories, and offers them with minimal content. I suspect he’s a better writer than he shows, and I’m sure he could write a great feature. But he’s a section A journalist. And there’s nothing wrong with that.
I like to collect news items too. But only when I have some comment on them, something another blogger hasn’t already commented on or thought of. I suppose that’s narcissistic in its own way. Jimmy Mac, for example, sends me several stories a week. Most of them I don’t comment on. Some because I try to keep a tolerable level of stomach acid. And some because I agree with Jim’s liberal viewpoint, and I have nothing original to add.
I enjoy bloggers who are more pure writers. They stare out their window near dawn, and make some connection with a Bible passage, a word from a saint, some poet, some bit of nature–and in ten minutes, they have three-hundred words of a totally unique insight that nobody ever thought of before. I love that.
I suspect that Catholics are attracted to certain kinds of blogs more than others.
“Tell us the facts. Tell us the truth. And we’re good.” These folks like their religion and their life black-and-white, with no gray area. They’re going to like Greg, and most of the conservative news outlets. They need reinforcement, wagons circled, and what they thought they were sure about yesterday confirmed again today.
“Challenge me. Get me out of my rut.” These folks know they aren’t perfect. They know they need help, and if a good kick is going to help them, so be it.
Some people seem lonely, and they just want to engage in some way socially. Either to be argumentative or to be totally supportive.
It takes all kinds. That’s why were a catholic Church. That’s why we’re a body. We’re not 1.2 billion ears. Or 1.2 billion folded hands.
Maybe once we realize that, we can get to work reading other blogs, other viewpoints, and find out who the really good writers, thinkers, theologians, teachers, poets, artists, and saints are. And not who stars for Team Catholic and cheers them on.
Let’s read about “The trinitarian christocentricity of the Gospel message.”
99. The Word of God, incarnate in Jesus of Nazareth, Son of the Blessed Virgin Mary, is the Word of the Father who speaks to the world through his Spirit. Jesus constantly refers to the Father, of whom he knows he is the Only Son, and to the Holy Spirit, by whom he knows he is anointed. He is ‘the Way’ that leads to the innermost mystery of God. (Cf. Jn 14:6) The christocentricity of catechesis, in order of its internal dynamic, leads to confession of faith in God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
It is essentially a trinitarian christocentricity. Christians, at Baptism, are configured to Christ, “One of the Trinity”, (319) and constituted “sons in the Son”, in communion with the Father and the Holy Spirit. Their faith is, therefore, radically Trinitarian. “The mystery of the Most Holy Trinity is the central mystery of Christian faith and life”. (Catechism 234; cf. Catechism 2157)
The essence of Christianity is that speaking of the Trinity is more than just dancing around words. Trinitarian catechesis has three points. First, do we perceive the proper prepositions: to, through, in? Second, while we may not be able to comprehend the mystery of God, we can model God’s “intimacy” though our actions and relationships as Christians. So, do we? And third, how many believers are aware of the connection between human dignity and human community and the Trinity?
100. The trinitarian christocentricity of the Gospel message leads catechesis to attend amongst others, to the following points.
– The internal structure of catechesis: every mode of presentation must always be christocentric-trinitarian: “Through Christ to the Father in the Holy Spirit”. (General Catechetical Directory 41; cf. Eph 2:18) “If catechesis lacks these three elements or neglects their close relationship, the Christian message can certainly lose its proper character”. (General Catechetical Directory 41)
– Following the pedagogy of Jesus in revelation of the Father, of himself as the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, catechesis shows the most intimate life of God, starting with his salvific works for the good of humanity. (Cf. Catechism 258, 236 and 259) The works of God reveal who he is and the mystery of his inner Being throws light on all of his works. It is analogous with human relationships: people reveal themselves by their actions and, the more deeply we know them, the better we understand what they do. (Cf. Catechism 236)
– The presentation of the innermost being of God, revealed by Jesus, the mystery of being one in essence and three in Person, has vital implications for the lives of human beings. To confess belief in one God means, that “(human beings) should not submit (their) personal freedom in an absolute manner to any earthly power”. (Catechism 450) It also implies that humanity, made in the image and likeness of God who is a “communion of persons”, is called to be a fraternal society, comprised of sons and daughters of the same Father, and equal in personal dignity. (326) The human and social implications of the Christian concept of God are immense. The Church, in professing her faith in the Trinity and by proclaiming it to the world, understands herself as “a people gathered together in the unity of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit”. (The term comes from St Cyprian “De orat. dom.”, 23; PL, 4:553; LG 4b)
(319) The term ‘one of the Trinity’ was used by the Fifth Ecumenical Council (Constantinople 533): cf. Constantinopolitanum II, Session VIII, can. 4, Dz 424. It is also used in the Catechism, 468.
(326) Cf. Catechism 1878; Catechism 1702. Sollicitudo Rei Socialis uses the term model of unity when referring to this question. Catechism 2845 calls the communion of the Blessed Trinity “the source and criterion of truth in every relationship”.
We will be occupied with GIRM’s Chapter IV for a long time. It covers numbered sections 112 through 287. The first subdivision, “Mass with the People,” covers nearly half the chapter, 115-198. In GIRM 199-251, we’ll look at concelebration, though perhaps not in every small detail. “Mass at Which only One Minister Participates,” 252-272. The final topic of Chapter IV is “Some General Norms for
All Forms of Mass.”
Let’s not get too far ahead of ourselves, though.
112. In the local Church, first place should certainly be given, because of its significance, to the Mass at which the Bishop presides, surrounded by his Presbyterate, Deacons, and lay ministers,[Sacrosanctum Concilium 41] and in which the holy People of God participate fully and actively, for it is there that the principal manifestation of the Church is found.
It might be instructive to count up the number of mentions of active participation in the GIRM.
At a Mass celebrated by the Bishop or at which he presides without celebrating the Eucharist, the norms found in the Caeremoniale Episcoporum (Ceremonial of Bishops) should be observed.[Cf. Ceremonial of Bishops, 119-186]
The Ceremonial of Bishops–if I were a cathedral liturgist or musician, I might consider a future CS series on that document. As it is, there are very illustrative aspects to that document. We might get to it anyway, someday.
113. Great importance should also be given to a Mass celebrated with any community, but especially with the parish community, inasmuch as it represents the universal Church at a given time and place, and chiefly in the common Sunday celebration.[Cf. Sacrosanctum Concilium 42; Lumen Gentium 28; Presbyterorum Ordinis 5; Eucharisticum Mysterium 26]
114. Moreover, among those Masses celebrated by some communities, a particular place belongs to the Conventual Mass, which is a part of the daily Office, or the “community” Mass. Although such Masses do not involve any special form of celebration, it is nevertheless most fitting that they be celebrated with singing, especially with the full participation of all members of the community, whether of religious or of canons. Therefore, in these Masses all should exercise their function according to the Order or ministry they have received. Hence, it is desirable that all the Priests who are not obliged to celebrate individually for the pastoral benefit of the faithful concelebrate in so far as possible at the conventual or community Mass. In addition, all Priests belonging to the community who are obliged, as a matter of duty, to celebrate individually for the pastoral benefit of the faithful may also on the same day concelebrate at the conventual or community Mass.[Cf. Eucharisticum Mysterium 47] For it is preferable that Priests who are present at a celebration of the Eucharist, unless excused for a just reason, should usually exercise the function proper to their Order and hence take part as concelebrants, wearing sacred vestments. Otherwise, they wear their proper choir dress or a surplice over a cassock.
Perhaps some readers who are part of a religious community may have some comments to make on GIRM 114. Otherwise, anybody else see anything of significance in these sections?