Ferocity?

Interesting thread on selecting Down Syndrome children for abortions here. Friend and occasional commenter Crystal has an insistent presence in the commentariat there. What do you think of her assessment here:

… given the ferocity of the pro-life movement, abortions will almost never be done now by hospitals or doctor’s offices or other clinics … (Planned Parenthood) is what we have left and we have the pro-life movement to thank for that.

Planned_Parenthood_logo_svgI’ve heard Planned Parenthood does under 10% of women’s health services in this country but receives nearly all of the federal funding allocated for it. I hear the cry to defund, but no specifics on reassigning the $$ for women and the unborn. So the defund would seem to include people who want to save a buck or two. Economics, not morality, then. Right?

The young miss, as attentive readers know, was born with a serious genetic birth defect. She would not have lived for more than a few months without significant medical attention. I can see that parents might react with jitters and much worse when confronted with news of a child who might live a limited life with significant suffering. What should the consequences of abortion be in such a case? Prison time? The Max solution: blame God? What are the consequences for the supporting extended family and faith community?

In an ideal world, even the infants with the most severe conditions or illnesses would find ready support. But the world is far from ideal, isn’t it? The political pro-life movement suffers from the same defect, it would seem.

Making a decision to abort a child is largely legal, and totally beyond the control of even the most fervid activists. On the other hand, millions of the world’s children suffer diseases, languish in orphanages, and face lives of abject poverty. And they weren’t aborted. How much attention do they deserve? Is it worth fifty, ten, or one percent of the political pro-life energy, resources, picket-walking, and such?

Posted in Politics, The Blogosphere | Tagged , | 2 Comments

Who Saves

William Oddie struggles with being called out on some basic Christian theology:

I have been pondering on one response to a blog I wrote recently, the headline of which ended “Few understand this pontificate: but it’s the Church that saves us”. The response began “… Wrong! It is Jesus Christ who saves us”. I naturally assumed that this was written by a Protestant …

drillIt was a Catholic challenge, thank goodness, and spot-on. Dr Oddie scrambles to suggest that the Church is the tool through which Jesus saves, so therefore the Church saves. It’s also difficult to take “friendly fire” for one’s fuzzy theology, so naturally, only meaniehead Protestants attack “faithful” Catholics.

I suppose the distinction is apt as well for my power tool: I tighten and remove screws, but it is really my drill that does the work.

Does my drill get callouses and strains? Does it plug itself in and make adjustments with extensions?

When it wears out, can’t I just buy a new tool?

It is a fundamental Catholic principle that the unworthiness of the minister cannot effect the validity of the sacraments he celebrates.

Not only the sacraments. It is the strange and twisted affirmation of God that even a pope disliked for his “confusing” statements about traditional trimmings can actually restore credibility lost to the focus on the institution. A pope who just shows up for Mass and celebrates as a baptized person, not as a priest as such. A pope who suggests we must start with people rather than the law. A pope who identifies himself as a sinner–an admission that’s likely to get you put on a traditionalist’s hit list for ridicule, job loss, and (horror of horrors) identification as a Protestant–gasp!

Dr Oddie focuses on the sacramental life of the Church and sacramental efficacy. And well he should, as a good Catholic. But if the sacraments are so important to salvation, perhaps it is time to reassess sacramental practice at the margins. Somehow, I don’t think the whole supernatural edifice of grace will come crashing down if a few remarried Catholics are returned to the sacraments.

Does the church save? Maybe a little too much.

Image Credit.

Posted in Commentary | 4 Comments

Cinquant’anni Dopo 10-11: In the Person of Christ

Fr Ev farewell MassWe continue our examination of Cardinal Robert Sarah’s June 2015 essay for L’Osservatore Romano. I’ve used an “early” translation, attributed here to Michael J. Miller at Catholic World Report. Others are out there.

The dialogues are among the most important parts of the Mass. I would suggest there are many dialogues at Mass that involve other persons. Responsorial psalmody is both the proclamation of the sung Word of God as well as a dialogue with the liturgical assembly.

Of course, there are other parts of the Mass in which the priest, acting “in persona Christi Capitis” [“in the person of Christ the Head”] enters into a nuptial dialogue with the assembly. But the only purpose of this face-to-face is to lead to a tête-À-tête with God which, through the grace of the Holy Spirit, will become a heart-to-heart conversation.

That experience of cor ad cor loquitur would certainly be a prime grace hoped-for in the spiritual life of Christians.

Cardinal Sarah adds a citation from SC, but inaccurately, I think:

The Council thus proposes other means of promoting participation: “acclamations, responses, psalmody, antiphons, and songs, as well as by actions, gestures, and bodily attitudes” (no. 30).

The Constitution reads that encouraging these means will promote participation. It is the encouragement in context of the non-participating assemblies of the 1960’s that was deemed an important need. When the faithful engage in these spoken and sung words as well as bodily postures they are fulfilling the rubrics of the Missal with regard to their own participation.

A misinterpretation of good liturgy follows:

An over-hasty and all-too-human interpretation has led some to conclude that it was necessary to make sure that the faithful were constantly busy.

Post-conciliar liturgical reform also promotes silence. There is a difference between silent attention when other people are serving and biding one’s time for one’s next opportunity. Clergy are often, but not always, good role models for this. There are also collective times of silence: after readings, after the invitation to pray, and at other important moments.

The contemporary Western mentality, shaped by technology and fascinated by the media, tried to make the liturgy a work of effective, rewarding instruction.

Not only media, but also the Church’s misplaced catechetical instincts.

In this spirit, many have tried to make liturgical celebrations convivial. Liturgical ministers, prompted by pastoral motives, sometimes try to instruct by introducing profane, show-business elements into liturgical celebrations. Don’t we sometimes see a proliferation of testimonies, scenery and applause? They think that this will foster the participation of the faithful, whereas in fact it reduces the liturgy to a human game.

Often it does. Announcements, staging, and clapping all can reduce liturgy to something less than it could be. I tend not to worry over much about applause–it’s second dictionary definition is affirmation for an idea expressed. It’s not always about affirming performance. The local pastor is the best judge of the context of things such as testimonies and applause.

Note: I Wasn’t able to find the original essay on the L’Osservatore Romano site. Your comments, however, are most welcome.

Posted in Liturgy | Tagged , | 7 Comments

Laudato Si 71: God Offers Renewal

Earth from Apollo 8The encyclical letter Laudato Si is available here on the Vatican website. Noah was just, and through the grace of God, was the cornerstone of a fresh start for humankind:

71. Although “the wickedness of man was great in the earth” (Gen 6:5) and the Lord “was sorry that he had made man on the earth” (Gen 6:6), nonetheless, through Noah, who remained innocent and just, God decided to open a path of salvation. In this way he gave humanity the chance of a new beginning. All it takes is one good person to restore hope!

Not only did the Pentateuch offer a Sabbath every seventh day, but God also provided for the renewal of sabbaticals and jubilees:

The biblical tradition clearly shows that this renewal entails recovering and respecting the rhythms inscribed in nature by the hand of the Creator. We see this, for example, in the law of the Sabbath. On the seventh day, God rested from all his work. He commanded Israel to set aside each seventh day as a day of rest, a Sabbath, (cf. Gen 2:2-3; Ex 16:23; 20:10). Similarly, every seven years, a sabbatical year was set aside for Israel, a complete rest for the land (cf. Lev 25:1-4), when sowing was forbidden and one reaped only what was necessary to live on and to feed one’s household (cf. Lev 25:4-6). Finally, after seven weeks of years, which is to say forty-nine years, the Jubilee was celebrated as a year of general forgiveness and “liberty throughout the land for all its inhabitants” (cf. Lev 25:10). This law came about as an attempt to ensure balance and fairness in their relationships with others and with the land on which they lived and worked.

I can only imagine if countries who styled themselves as loyal to the Judeo-Christian tradition were to adopt such measures in their working life. In addition, those who emptied their lands of produce were considered lawbreakers:

At the same time, it was an acknowledgment that the gift of the earth with its fruits belongs to everyone. Those who tilled and kept the land were obliged to share its fruits, especially with the poor, with widows, orphans and foreigners in their midst: “When you reap the harvest of your land, you shall not reap your field to its very border, neither shall you gather the gleanings after the harvest. And you shall not strip your vineyard bare, neither shall you gather the fallen grapes of your vineyard; you shall leave them for the poor and for the sojourner” (Lev 19:9-10).

It would be interesting to see how many supporters of the Ten Commandments were likewise supportive of these cultural efforts to provide for the needy. I think especially of those who criticize the socialist instincts of modern society by suggesting that somehow, the poor had it better when relying on the random generosity of churches and other givers, rather than on law and culture.

Posted in Laudato Si | Leave a comment

Open Thread on Monotheism

Way_of_Worship_may_be_Different_-_but_God_is_One__NubraMax takes exception to a certain certainty I espouse, that Abraham and his God are at the root of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.

Why are you so certain this is true? why are you being so forceful about it?

I suppose I’m insisting Max is wrong in the same way I would argue against something patently false like the flat earth. If Max read the Bible and the Qur’an more carefully instead of using so much ctrl-v, it would seem obvious. But then again, if a person attended an astronomy convention and tried to argue for a young Earth, I suppose there would be a combination of laughter, insistence, and walking away with shaking heads on the part of various conventioners.

The more apt question is why a non-religionist like Max would insist on separate gods–like he cared.

If it were true, why wouldn’t these three religions have identical rituals and theologies?

Heck, the two Roman Catholic parishes in my new town don’t have identical rituals. And theology? I’m tempted to suggest that many aspects of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are human fabrications.

Why is the God of Abraham insisting on rivalry between them?

How do we know God insists on rivalry? What if it’s just the human condition? Wherever two or more are gathered, there is often inevitable contention. Why should people of faith be different? We aren’t perfect–that’s what the field hospital is for.

Why did God create these three religions to look designed by tribes of men – instead of by Him?

Easy. If religion were undeniably designed by God, faith would be out the window. It would be a matter not unlike astronomers versus flat earthers.

Image credit.

Posted in open thread | 7 Comments

Locating The Choir

Beauvais Cathedral organIn the comments today, Ld offered some thoughts on the placement of music ministry. Check the comment and the citations, most of which we’ve discussed on this site over the past nine years. I’d like to respond to some specifics:

The choir is supposed to be part of the worshipping community. Is there anybody who thought that because the choir was in a choir loft the members weren’t really at Mass?

I think it depends. You can be at Mass when you are in a loft. The question offered by the GIRM is different: are they part of the worshipping assembly? Choir lofts may be perceived as places apart from the assembly. In one choir loft I once knew, the sanctuary area was invisible to the choir when they were seated. Additionally, the library staff would often use the homily time (since they couldn’t see the preacher) to sort, file, and distribute music. Not only were they not part of the assembly, I might wonder if a few folks were really at Mass.

If choir lofts can accommodate regular parishioners–family members of choristers, latecomers, etc., then I would say the loft satisfies the requirement. My grad school parish had good visibility lines and full naves for weekend Mass. People felt welcome to go up or down–even little kids fascinated by the pipe organ.

I do think that in some churches, lofts on one end are the optimal location for sound projection.

The sanctuary is reserved for the ministers of the Mass. Ministers here refers to bishops, priests, deacons, acolytes, readers and cantors, not to the congregation or the choir.

Regarding the choir, this would be an interpretation that could easily go the other way. Indeed, in some churches, the “front” end of the long nave is just as good for sound projection as the “rear.”

The reality of the choir is that if it can be seen, it serves as a distraction to the faithful at Mass.

Agreed–which is why all choristers should be well-trained not to do distracting things.

Another consideration to note when placing the choir is that when a choir is in front of the congregation and facing the congregation, it appears that the choir is giving a concert instead of fulfilling its proper role at Mass. Also, if the choir is facing the congregation, it isn’t directing its music towards the proper focal point. In fact, it will have its back to what is most important, namely, the Eucharist.

Another advantage to antiphonal seating for the entire assembly.

Ld, feel free to chine in. As well as any others.

Image credit.

Posted in Liturgical Music | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Cinquant’anni Dopo 9: Toward The East

Fr Ev farewell MassLet’s continue our examination of Cardinal Robert Sarah’s June 2015 essay for L’Osservatore Romano. The translation, is here, from Michael J. Miller at Catholic World Report.

Contrary to what has sometimes been maintained, and quite in keeping with the conciliar Constitution, it is altogether appropriate, during the penitential rite, the singing of the Gloria, the orations and the Eucharistic prayer, that everyone, priest and faithful, turn together toward the East, so as to express their intention to participate in the work of worship and redemption accomplished by Christ. This way of celebrating could possibly be implemented in cathedrals, where the liturgical life must be exemplary (cf. no. 41).

The only appeal for me connects with the notion of pilgrims on the move, facing their direction of travel. On the other hand, neither sacrifice or banquet are conducted “on the road.” This consideration makes the argument for facing East often tiresome. Tradition for tradition’s sake, in other words.

Even when the clergy are turned around, the worshipping community faces a common direction: the center, where Christ is present. There is no less an impetus to participate in the action of Christ in a radial format where attention is directed from all sides, rather than just from the West.

Note: I Wasn’t able to find the original essay on the L’Osservatore Romano site. Reader comments, however, are most welcome.

Posted in Liturgy | Tagged , | 8 Comments