Conciliaria

Eric Stoltz has a really fine effort brewing. Go visit Conciliaria. From the site:

Welcome to Conciliaria, where you can relive the moving and hope-filled days of the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965). To celebrate the 50th anniversary of the Council, we offer day-to-day coverage, utilizing archival reporting from that time, contemporary documents and special guest correspondents who will step into a time machine to report on the dramatic events as though they were there 50 years ago.

This site looks great, and looks to have a scholarly touch to match the eye candy. Hope–something a lot of us can use these days. His old blog, Cathedrals of California, is still on the side bar, though it’s been inactive for a few years.

I found the reference to this new site at the Bench, where the Hermeneutic of Subtraction is emerging already:

Oh Lord, no more lopsided glorification of Vatican II, please. Its “springtime” still isn’t apparent.

I can almost guarantee that this site will only talk about Vatican II, will ignore Vatican I, and every other one of the Church’s other 20 councils.

Well.

This is sort of like going to someone’s Golden Anniversary party and complaining they aren’t apparently celebrating your anniversary … next month … the 42nd.

Eric was calm in his rejoinder:

Yes, the site was created to commemorate the 50th anniversary of Vatican II, so it will be about Vatican II. It will refer to other councils when appropriate ….

It is, however, about Vatican II specifically and not about ecumenical councils generally, although that would certainly be a worthwhile project for someone to undertake.

The 150th anniversary of Vatican I will be in 2020. You could certainly start working now on an appropriate commemoration for then!

In Catholicism, I think there’s a desire for knowledge and information, but I don’t think there’s always a work ethic attached to that. In other words, many Catholics want to be fed. But apparently, they don’t want to go shopping, prepare the food, and explore it with other diners.

Many people on the Catholic Right apparently complain about a lack of good catechesis, but I find the complaining is about as far as their catechesis often goes. Maybe it’s cafeteria aversion–who knows?

Intrepid Catholics could apparently certainly set up any number of web pages devoted to Vatican I (why wait for the anniversary party?) or any of the other councils. Why don’t they? It’s easier to poke at what other people are doing, apparently. It’s like that CMAA thread from last week about words they don’t like. It’s very easy to make your mark on a landscape by scribbling and scratching things out. It takes a lot longer to sketch something of beauty, let alone build it up.

Here’s hoping Conciliaria has many years of building up the good stuff.

 

On the Blessed Blood

While researching materials for my presentation on the new Roman Missal, I found this quote from St Julian of Norwich which seems appropriate in the context of the Hermeneutic of Subtraction:

God has created bountiful waters on the earth for our use and our bodily comfort, out of the tender love he has for us. But it is more pleasing to him that we accept freely his blessed blood to wash us of our sins, for these is no drink that is made which it pleases him so well to give us; for it is so plentiful, and it is of our own nature.

 

Lies or Ignorance?

It’s sort of a head-scratcher on one of the more common reasons given for the confluence of the Hermeneutic of Subtraction and Communion from the Cup. Br Dan sorts it all out for you here.

As one dotCommonweal commentator asked earlier today, which is worse to consider:

• The bishops of Phoenix and Madison are ignorant of the fine details of the GIRM and Roman Catholic liturgical legislation?
• They are lying to their people?

I can understand bishops getting in way over their heads on administration–wanting to defend a brother priest even to the point of enabling criminal behavior. Lay people do that, too. But bishops have a sacramental and apostolic responsibility to the believers entrusted to them. These decisions on liturgy betray a crucial lack of prudence. But they also expose a few of our shepherds as woefully out of their element on matters of theology. Or in simply telling the truth.

 

Subtracting Opportunities of Grace

The Chant Cafe this week has featured two longish essays by an apologist for the restriction of Communion from the Cup. This initiative is burdened by many problems: theological, pastoral, and spiritual. It has two things going for it. A whole involved theological line of reasoning has developed around it. Plus: it is an administrative reality–bishops and clergy are certainly permitted to do this. The question: is it wise or prudent or logical? I think not.

Poor decisions like this are easily identifiable by their fruit. What do I see? People outside of Arizona cheerful and sad about an initiative they won’t experience. The political identification of this restriction with traditional 50′s Catholicism, and by association on Jeffrey’s site, with chant. Pom-poms and protests: another modern Catholic combination.

One telling factor is that the Phoenix administration seems satisfied that major liturgical surgery will be sufficient to address what they see as a problem.

Commenter Ben Dunlap:

(C)an you articulate in more detail why you see this as a restriction of opportunities for grace — as opposed to a concrete remedy for a particular situation in Phoenix that the bishop there has discerned to be in need of a remedy?

Theologians focus on their cherished reasons–a self-justifying rationalization of historical drift and poor sacramental practice. But the restriction is both a perceived fact and (if you will) an artistic reality.

It goes deeper than more is better. It involves a connection with the Scriptures and Jesus’ command to take, eat, and drink. The Lord’s preaching on the Eucharist is fairly explicit. The biblical witness, as is the early tradition of the Church, would seem to be in conflict with the recent past.

Do Catholics live the witness of the Gospel in all matters fully, or do we perform the minimum requirements to keep our membership card in good standing?

Catholics today, especially if their catechetical formation is in such bad shape, are going to need more than theological exercises to crack the barrier. They will need a deeper view of the generosity of the Lord. God sent his Son who achieved human salvation through the Paschal Mystery. Our response is a measly hour on Sunday–40 minutes if we choose the “quiet mass” before Sunday morning golf.

I don’t believe in the automatic efficacy of programs, but the least I would expect from Bishop Olmsted is a pastoral letter on the Eucharist, a plan for adult faith formation, and the internal rigor to invest himself in the pastoral care of his people. Otherwise, this just looks like another agenda item on the to-do list of the branch manager:

• - Sunday: Confirmation in the desert boonies
• - Monday: Restrict God’s generosity
• - Tuesday: Write a pro-life letter
• - Wednesday: Raise money from the local muckety-mucks for a new episcopal mansion

Just another day’s work.

 

The Phoenix Principle

Check out Rock’s one-minute clip from the beginning of the Papal Mass. The musings at PrayTell (thanks for the tip) focus in part on the looks coming from the upper clergy–like somebody put dried cat droppings in the thurible.

Common ground, perhaps, but I think I’ve found a delightful way of tackling the spiritual misadventures in a certain Arizona diocese. Let’s call it the Phoenix Principle.

If some church celebration somewhere in the world’s view has something dreadfully wrong, who are we as North Americans to presume we can do it better? We need to all settle at a nice level of uniformity just a tad south of mediocre.

Let’s throw out our Steinways and get cheesy synthesizers, preferably a nice, used Yamaha DX-7 from the 80′s. Who cares if the MC didn’t tell the musicians the presider was gong to incense the altar at the end of the entrance procession? Just be ready to vamp on I and ii7 chords until the cat poop burns up.

Note that Deacon Greg has already closed his combox on Bishop Olmsted nixing the cup. Let’s roll for another round of competing sensibilities–nice work, Bishop. I see that uniformity is really working well on this initiative. Good going.

 

 

Another Day, Another Antigospel

The funeral planner brought back the report to me. The widow had asked, “Do we really need to offer the cup at his funeral? I never take from it. Most people don’t either.”

But then at the funeral dinner, my friend talked to the woman, who reported “something happened” when she went up to Communion. Her late husband, in fact, did receive the Precious Blood, and “without thinking” she presented herself in front of the Communion minister. Just as her husband did. “I felt a connection with him when I received the Blood.”

It was a connection she had missed as the family gathered to pray and tell stories. And as she went through the excruciating tasks of planning, sitting, worrying, and dealing with the first chunks of raw grief.

It was an opportunity.

Granted, it was just one small opportunity that likely would have eventually happened. God always works around human obstructions, excuses, lame reasoning, and general non-sensical behaviors.

I  had debated posting about this story at all, but you can surely bet I’ve been watching it in the Catholic blogogroup for the past two days. I was actually hoping PrayTell got punked by somebody. But alas, it is as true as the color of the sky, and Fr Ruff has an ample takedown of the reasons behind the initiative.

Reviewing good liturgical practice, church history, and theology is taking place capably on other sites. Go there and read them if you need the intellectual argument against Bishop Olmsted buttressed.

Speaking for myself, I don’t need to go much further than the combox at the Bench to note another victory for the forces of “conflict and division,” as the second Eucharistic Prayer for Reconciliation terms it.

I am delighted at this news.

I find the news … to be most impressive and encouraging.

They should be praised for this.

This is precisely what the Church needs.

What the Church precisely does not need are canon lawyers and armchair theologians waving pom-poms in our faces. Clearly the SCGS antigospel has yet to penetrate to the teaching of the apostle:

… so that there may be no division in the body, but that the parts may have the same concern for one another. If [one] part suffers, all the parts suffer with it; if one part is honored, all the parts share its joy.

As I mention above, I considered ignoring this story. It certainly does my spirit no good to muse about the gnostic and antigospel tendencies in the modern American episcopate. I was thinking about doing a spiritual and liturgical take-down of each of the “reasons” given on the website cited above.

Ministry is difficult. There are no easy solutions to the problems faced by those of us who serve, and who watch and worry about the wider sacrileges, ignorance, indifference, trials, and challenges faced by our sisters and brothers in the world.

At a meeting yesterday, I was confronted by a line in the prayer attributed to Pope Clement XI:

I offer you, Lord, … (m)y sufferings: to be endured for your greater glory.

I don’t even to pretend to understand a line like this. Suffering is always a shame. My parents always cautioned our snickering when a sibling was in trouble. God’s glory would seem to happen in spite of suffering or in the triumph over it rather than in the actual experience.

I don’t plan to move to Phoenix or even visit there anytime soon. I live in a diocese served by a gentle and wise bishop. My parish and I will enjoy the opportunity offered by the cup of salvation to call upon the name of the Lord. And I will pray for my sisters and brothers in Arizona who, not only have one more spiritual opportunity sealed off from them, but who will also be the targets of tasteless cheering by the Temple Police.

 

The Latest from the Culture of Complaint

At the Bench, Deacon Greg posted on news of the cancelled interfaith dinner at a Catholic high school in Cincinnati. While the school administration and the archbishop’s spokesperson deny specific threats, the safety of students was cited for not going forward with breaking bread with Muslims.

The local CAIR seems to have landed in a Michael Voris moment with its tax-exempt status. So is it all a disguise to kidnap young Catholic women and do bad things? An example of a heavy-handed bishop blundering in the china shop? The Temple Police asserting their authority over the episcopacy?

Shakila Ahmad, a trustee at the Islamic Center, said it is “very, very rare” for an interfaith event to be canceled or moved.

“I’m really sad because it was an opportunity for people to break bread and build understanding,” she said. “If you don’t have opportunities to talk to each other, how are we going to understand our differences and build respect?”

It would seem that e-mail-addicted Catholics need to learn the lesson for their own brothers and sisters. All in all, another sparkling day for the First Quality of the Church.

 

Why Not Mysticism?

 

I know this piece went up before I left, but I noted the 100-plus comment thread yesterday. I got to about number 25 and thought, “same old, same old,” yawned, and moved on. Wouldn’t serendipity bring me to begin the first letter of Peter toward the end of my retreat, and then dang! That 1 Peter 2:11-17 pops up this morning, talking about relations within and outside of the community of love.

While the internet age might render even one hundred twentysome comments irrelevant by the end of the week, the issues of the Church are still with us. It’s only logical: the internet never seems to solve any problems, just stoke the fires of the opposing camps. But I’m still curious about what these conservative Catholics are doing, and is the Commonweal pushback fruitful?

As you might guess, I’m going to triangulate off the political spectrum–because this is a one-hundred-percent political issue as it’s being framed today; make no mistake. My chief criticism of the Catholic Right is that they are in large part embracing a hermeneutic of subtraction. Michael Voris concedes my point when he ascribes to the surgical approach to the Church’s problems.

In turn I’ll concede it’s a pretty rational approach, though. I have, say, an alcohol addiction. I’ll just cut out the booze. Or better yet, I’ll cut out the people who “force” me to drink: my nagging spouse, my brat kids, my crazy boss. And then when the day is done, I’ll settle in with my only true friend who understands me. The bottle. Jesus nailed it:

“When an unclean spirit goes out of a person it roams through arid regions searching for rest but finds none. Then it says, ‘I will return to my home from which I came.’ But upon returning, it finds it empty, swept clean, and put in order. Then it goes and brings back with itself seven other spirits more evil than itself, and they move in and dwell there; and the last condition of that person is worse than the first.”

The perception is clear, and I think many are misled into thinking that all they have to do is rid themselves of the “unclean spirit” of poor catechesis, bumbling liturgical implementation, polyester dancing nun puppets, and voilà: you get a freshly minted orthodox Catholic, ready for battle, and toked up on all the right blogs.

I suspect more of what’s really amiss is the substitution of an active intellect for the real poverty of the Catholic Church: a deeper union with God. That union is offered. Offered to all believers. It’s not something you can find in books or the catechism or the blog of the month. It’s not something you can find in the new media. More likely, you will have to turn off the phone, the computer, and the tv to get closer.

When I got back into town yesterday, I ran across this quote from the last Pope Benedict, in the last century:

We must earnestly draw the attention of souls to the conditions required for the progress of the grace of the virtues and gifts of the Holy Spirit–the perfect development of which is found in the mystical life.

Thomas Merton and many others of the century since have quietly, insistently reminded us that a more mystical union with God is rightly the path of any believer. It requires no intellect. It requires no ideology. It is open to anyone who seeks: lay or clergy, man or woman, adult or child, left or right, secure or alienated, blogger or not.

My own impatience with the expression of the hermeneutic of subtraction is that the choice offered is so impoverished. An enormous block of marble is attacked, but instead of pruning to give us a sculpted scene, or even a larger-than-life statue, we are given a fingernail clipping: something acceptable to all the carvers. If that.

Not to deny the heartfelt aspirations of many neoreformers: there is much with which to be dissatisfied these days, both within the Church and without. Unless we are eager to be overrun with demons in multiples, my suggestion is to take a deep breath (literally!) and steer a truer course toward God.

One of the questions that turned up on my retreat was whom to trust. This writer, that writer, this commentary, that commentary, this way, that way: where do you go in all the catholicity presented to us? A simple answer came (another serendipity) as I was finishing up my lectio with 1 John 5:9a:

If we accept human testimony, the testimony of God is surely greater …

There’s a context as to why this is so, but I want to wrap this up.

So the questions I have of these Catholic convulsions on all sides: with what are you replacing all of these things you concede are demons? And especially if you are espousing radical notions, where is your own radix (root) in all this? Great Church reformers like Hildegard and Catherine of Siena were lay mystics. Their criticism of popes, emperors, “effeminate clergy,” and others in authority was based not on political action of the Karl Rove/Deal Hudson flavor. They were rooted in God, not rotted in people. Where is the excuse for us not to attend to God’s testimony and journey on the mystical way? And for the rest of us, why would we think of paying attention to a non-mystic above a mystic, or above even that small, stirring, nearly hidden voice of God?

 

Bill Done!

As a liberal, a deep skeptic of major political parties, and a doubter on the efficacy of a bill that will take years to sink in and take effect, I have to confess it is a relief to see insurance reform passed tonight.

That said, it might be time to sew up the rifts among Catholics. The bill is passed, so it’s time to make sure abortions get stopped one at a time. Whatever and however it takes to persuade and support people who are on the fence regarding their pregnancies.

The real sifting of the pro-life movement will happen with the opportunities to work together on essential things: locally, politically, in the ecclesial sphere–everywhere. I’m hopeful we’ll see an end to whining and blame in some quarters, and a redoubled effort to overcome the hermeneutic of subtraction. Am I dreaming?

Update: Let the whining begin … begin … begin … begin …

 

Another Shining Moment for Political Catholics

Few things rankle me more than deliberate injustice perpetrated on people. I’ve experienced it myself, and I’ve seen it practiced by bishops, pastors and parishioners on otherwise innocent and usually shocked individuals. I haven’t been following the most recent Catholic Republican push to discredit the CCHD. But I find it tough to let last week’s episode with John Carr go without leveling some heavy criticism the way of the political anti-abortion movement, and some select bloggers.

With this word of support, I can imagine Fr Frank Pavone is pretty close to being labelled a left-wing babykiller. Good for him, especially if he gives some of the more vehement political anti-abortion crowd a headache trying to figure out right from wrong.

I have to say I’m shocked an organization like Our Sunday Visitor would give this gossip the time of day. There’s a danger we all face in blogging: few to no colleagues, no editorial board, no standards of journalism, no training in either proper dissemination of news or even, it would seem for some, any moral compass. It’s really a shame an organization that purports to uphold principles of journalism would get duped. And more, lower itself to the detritus level of the internet.

Catholic Republicans show their true colors. Political parties long ago shed any sense of moral compass. The Republicans may give anti-abortion lip service, but they seem more than content, even when in control of the federal government, to keep abortion-on-demand out there as a carrot for religious types ready to be fooled. Again. And again and again and again. We already know that when it comes to financial or sex scandals, the GOP is as likely as any other political party to be elbow-deep in scummy activities. And the Catholic brand of politics has certainly seem its share of being sullied.

As I understand it, the CCHD is not, and was never intended to be a charitable organization. It addresses the root causes of poverty. Too bad conservatives live up to their brand of voodoo and presume that as long as “good intentions” toward the poor are maintained, and soup kitchens kept open, they can retreat to their homes at night and sleep soundly knowing they’ve done their share of modelling
Matthew 25.

The problem for the modern Republican is that their brand is all hermenteutic of subtraction: stand for nothing, except for knocking down anyone in their way that happens to be standing. The thing about the poor: if you really care, at some point you might want to ponder a world in which charity money and labor doesn’t go down a seemingly-endless drain. You might posit, as the US bishops did decades ago, that it makes financial, if not moral sense, to address the root causes of why people need charity, rather than mindlessly writing your 5% check every week. (And did the Catholic Republicans remember to write that check?)

What would make moral sense would be for a moratorium on the efforts against the CCHD. By association, any critic will have to morally distance himself or herself from the gossipmongers of the past week or two. I think any organization is always reformable. But I’d say there are more and closer connections today between Catholic Republicans and the sins of calumny and detraction than John Carr ever had with abortion-on-demand.

And the sad thing of it: If pro-abortion folks had been able to get a trojan horse into the pro-life movement, it wouldn’t have worked any better than it did last week. Good thing I’m not a conservative, or I’d be calling for investigations on the usual conservative suspects and wondering what sorts of pro-choice links they had in their checkbooks, let alone their own histories.

So here’s how I see the remains: the win-at-all-cost, end-justifies-the-means mentality has usurped not a few Catholic blogs. In the course of sinking the CCHD, it doesn’t matter how pro-life you are. If you’re in the way, you will be the victim of lies, and in the grand ol’ tradition, they will try to pink-slip you off your job. Do I have it about right?

 

The Hermeneutic of Subtraction

Meredith enjoyed the expression “Hermeneutic of Subtraction.” I don’t know if it’s original with me, but I do observe it quite a bit. To be fair, it’s not just a characteristic of conservatives, but of many aspects of our society. Whether they’re in power or not, the Right, God bless them, seem to get stuck with it a lot.

Rod Dreher, for example, refers to the “hysteria” of Banned Books Week. Banning books is a prime example of the Hermeneutic of Subtraction. I see the movement to ban books as an expression of the impotence of some parents, worried they cannot control adolescent rebellion, who decide to subcontract the rearing of their children to librarians and schools, and insist others do the job they feel they cannot do for themselves.

As a parent of a teen, I realize that if my daughter wanted to, she could borrow any library books she wanted. She might well know my wife or I would disapprove. She is smart enough to hide these books from us, read them at her leisure, return them and we would never be the wiser. I may have a thick wool hat pulled over my head, but I think I have a great relationship with my daughter. I don’t think I’ve given her any motivation to sneak around behind my back.

She did pick up one of the Pullman books a few months ago. My wife gave me an eyebrow, and the young miss (not seeing the subvocal exchange) returned it to the shelf, rejected.

If my daughter wanted to read something I thought inappropriate, I would make my case in a positive way, and suggest an alternative. If she insisted, I would hear her out. (She often rolls her eyes, by the way, when I ask her to make a case for what she wants. But she’s getting pretty good at it.) If she convinced me, we would talk about the content. I feel confident in the upbringing my wife and I have provided. If a teacher were to suggest something of questionable content, I think we would have a good family discussion about it. I certainly don’t need censors to help me raise my child. I’m not afraid of a silly book or two.

Is that to say that some things mustn’t ever be banned? No. Not at all. But observe carefully if the campaigners offer alternatives. A thoughtful person will always have something great to add to the shelf. I know my daughter’s reading likes and dislikes. I try to have suggestions I know she will enjoy. It’s always harder to build up than to tear down, but that’s the whole point of human civilization, isn’t it? If you want historical evidence for the Hermeneutic of Subtraction, just consider the Romans salting down Carthage or Alaric’s 410 sack of Rome or the Fourth Crusade.