Dale Price takes his considerable fisking skills to a column by James Carroll. I think I would rather be processed through a wood chipper than fisked by Dale.
Julie D at Happy Catholic tagged me with the following meme.
The Rules:
Those tagged will share 5 things they "love" about Jesus. Those tagged will tag 5 other bloggers. Those tagged will provide a link in the comments section here with their name so that others can read them.
Wow a chance to show my piety! Oh wait once again something more about me than Jesus. The scriptures are really tricky sometimes. They sneak up on you with passages that you read over and over then suddenly knock you over. To paraphrase Chesterton you can look at something 99 times, but are really in danger the 100th time that you look at them.
"Therefore I tell you, her sins, which are many, are forgiven, for she loved much; but he who is forgiven little, loves little.” Luke 7:47
An annoying passage like this makes me wonder just how much I really love Jesus. I certainly know that I have had a lot forgiven, but I also doubt that my love in return is commensurate with it. Since I have been forgiven a lot, I should love a lot. So with that in mind I will still try to make my way through the meme, though I couldn’t just stop at five.
- I love the view from his shoulders as he carried me back to the flock.
- I love Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament in that he gave himself to us in such a personal and surprising way.
- I love that truth is a person and that we can talk to the person of Jesus and hopefully one day live with him.
- That he loves me more than I can possibly love him, but that through his grace I can still try to love him more.
- I love that he got through a hard-headed atheist skeptic like myself and that I can now say with St. Augustine "Late have I loved you, O Beauty ever ancient, ever new, late have I loved you! You were within me, but I was outside, and it was there that I searched for you. In my unloveliness I plunged into the lovely things which you created. You were with me, but I was not with you. Created things kept me from you; yet if they had not been in you they would not have been at all. You called, you shouted, and you broke through my deafness. You flashed, you shone, and you dispelled my blindness. You breathed your fragrance on me; I drew in breath and now I pant for you. I have tasted you, now I hunger and thirst for more. You touched me, and I burned for your peace."
- I love his reflection in the saints.
- That he loved me where I was at, but didn’t leave me there.
I would like to love him only for himself without any consideration of my final end.
I tag: Creative Minority Report, Play The Dad, Flying Stars, Catholic mom of 10, Blog by the Sea, Christopher Hitchens
Kelly Clark on James Carrol latest diatribe.
Jesus loves James Carroll. He loves the people who publish Carroll’s nonsense.
But He’s not about, I don’t think, to stand for much nonsense. Oh, He’ll let us read it. But He’s given us enough grace—and wisdom, to boot—to see through it.
Creative Minority Report on the John Wayne of Popes.
The Cincinnati Enquirer runs Rich Leonardi short essay on the motu:
While Christians strain the gnats of Harry Potter, here comes a camel.
In the post Motu Proprio reations for the liberalization of the 1962 missal are quite instructive. Pretty much the bishops you expected to act positively have and the ones that you would expect to act negatively have. No surprises there. It was also interesting to hear Raymond Arroyo writing in the WSJ reported that Bishop William S. Skylstad the current head of the USCCB "flatly told the pope that the U.S. bishops opposed any revival of the old rite"
The negative reactions mostly have a common thread that having both an ordinary and extraordinary form of the Mass for the Latin rite would cause division. No doubt there is some thruth to this since there are some 1962 missal onlyists who look down on the ordinary form of Mass as there will be some onlyists that look down on the older rite. But the argument about division seems rather odd since I would ask why are they worrying about it now?
The reality is there has already been liturgical division for years and that in many cases little was done, if anything, to rectify it. The experimentation and anything goes attitude that has been associated with the new Mass has created something fairly new in Catholic circles – that is parish shopping. Now I am not one to glorify older days because they were older days. No doubt before the implementation of the newer missal that the older rite was not always celebrated in a manner not worthy of it. Priests just going through the motions will always be a problem, though frankly I am amazed by those who do celebrate Mass each day in a worthy manner without falling into complacency. The sixties though were a time of change for change sake and Vatican II coinciding with this termultuos time had quite a synergetic effect.
But the decades that followed did little to correct for this massive bit of oscillation and while they are damped down from some of the wildest oscillations there is still much work to be done. I know just within my own diocese that the liturgical celebration of Mass varies widely in the different parishes I visit. It is sometimes hard to believe that they are all suppose to be based on the same liturgical books. Night at the Liturgical Improv is much more common than "read the black, do the red." The only real consistency you can expect at Mass is to hear a song by Haugen, Daas, or one of the other modern standards in so-called liturgical music. Though I have seen a decline in some of the more egregious liturgical abuses, especially after Redemptionis Sacramentum – your mileage may very.
Besides the celebration of the Mass there is also a wide divergence in what the Church teaches and what is taught at RCIA, CCD, other classes, and of course homilies. It is one thing to "offer it up" for banal music at Mass and and quite another to hear preached or taught doctrines that are not exactly orthodox. Experimentation didn’t stop at the liturgy but extended to all of parish life. Then there are the diocesan and other retreat centers that are so infected with fads and new agey feel good crap that would help propagate spiritual poison among the parishes and trickle down to the parishioner.
As a result of much of this parish shopping has become the norm with both sides of the liturgical divide looking for parishes that have the liturgy they want. Seeing postings on blogs from people requesting information on orthodox parishes in cities they are moving to have become common. There is something quite wrong with that picture and yet we have bishops worrying about an impending liturgical divide. I do wonder where these episcopal Rip Van Winkles have been?
I really do admire those who stick with their local parishes despite problems knowing that regardless of how bad the music is and how the liturgy is celebrated that it is still the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and that they are still receiving the Holy Eucharist. Mother Teresa talked about Jesus in his ‘distressing disguise’ and some Masses unfortunately bring that phrase to mind for me. I wish that I was a tenth as holy as those who are able to do this and mange to be patient and prayerful at Mass. I have a long way to go before I can put away my liturgical checklist and wishing to hunt down members of the parish’s choir after Mass and asking them if they have ever actually read any of the Church’s documents on sacred music. To not come up with some snarky mental reply when the priests starts asking if there is anybody visiting or whose birthday it is at the conclusion of Mass. Though I have made a little progress to that end. I once heard Jimmy Akin talking about handling this problem which must be more difficult for someone who knows every nuance of the liturgy. He said that he realized that it is not God’s will that the liturgy be a source of frustration and that this gives him more patience. For now prudence dictates that I mostly avoid the parishes most convenient to where I live and attend the one downtown where I went to RCIA.
Now I am not all doom and gloom and I don’t see the current situation worsening, but that things are moving in the right direction – albeit slowly. I just hope more bishops will realize that we are already in a liturgical divide and tying to frustrate the 1962 missal is not going to make the situation better.
Karen Hall posts:
In the middle of the L.A. Times article, one happens upon this staggering statistic:
In Los Angeles, some 75% of the archdiocese’s 288 parishes were served at some time by a cleric accused of molesting, according to a Times study. As the scandal’s details slowly emerged, it became clear that the church hierarchy knew about complaints against some priests and that at least a dozen were allowed to continue working in ministry after their conduct with children was questioned. (emphasis mine)
Now, just for fun, name another industry or organization wherein the boss could have overseen operations that led to the above quote in the L.A. times and a $600,000,000 loss for the company/organization without any consequences?
People are also bound to wonder about the obvious difference in treatment between Cardinal Mahoney and Cardinal Law. The difference between the L.A. Times and the Boston Globe’s coverage of their respective cardinals is striking. The L.A. Times has had some highly critical pieces on Cardinal Mahony in relation to priestly abuse, but not very many of them.
One difference that comes to mind is the cases that came to trial in L.A. are, as Diogenes previously noted, 44 representive cases the Archdiocese agreed could be litigated in court range from 1958 to 1984. All of them prior to Mahony times Archbishop. So there is no direct linkage to the Cardinal and the details of the cases prosecuted and post 1985 abuse cases will likely be settled out of court. So we just are not going to hear about the cases where he might have been involved in covering up abuse when he was still a priest and those cases he was obviously involved in as a Cardinal.
Though even the case cherry-picking does not account for the disparage in coverage. There have been some moves in the Archdiocese handling of priestly abuse under Cardinal Mahony that have been breath taking in their arrogance. The legal maneuvering to hide records of what the Archdiocese knew such as invoking confidentially of correspondence and putting any meetings between the Cardinal and a suspect as being spiritual guidance and protected. In the case of abuser Father Nicolas Aguilar Rivera the Archdiocese prevented further interviews under the guise of fear of an immigration crackdown. All of these legal tactics should have demanded spectacular headlines form the L.A. Times and other papers, but while there was coverage it certainly wasn’t amped up as the Globe’s was.
The differences in coverage seem to be due to the fact that the L.A. Times is quite sympathetic to Cardinal Mahony and the issues the Cardinal has fought for over the years. Cardinal Law despite his quite obvious flaws and complicity in the abuse cover ups was quite orthodox in his theology and heavily involved in the pro-life movement and of course this made him a prime target. Cardinal Mahony in contrast makes some noises in a pro-life direction, but is hardly active in the movement and has no problem holding events for ardently pro-abortion politicians. The L.A. Times can easily see him as one of their own and while they are troubled about the abuse problems under his watch, well between friends can’t we overlook some flaws? The media is certainly not going to shame Cardinal Mahony into resigning barring some yet unknown circumstances. The Cardinal is safe just as long as he doesn’t become too pro-life or actually start showing signs of orthodoxy.
Mercator.net has an amazing story of Anne McDonald:
Doctors thought I had an IQ of 20. You know what? They were wrong.
If you wanted to know the real reason why the CDF released the latest document, a commentator for CNN says:
Just chalk it up to an old man trying to get a little attention.
My favorite part of this ex-Catholic’s idiotic commentary is:
It doesn’t matter what Pope Benedict XVI has to say, or for that matter, any other religious leader. A Christian believes in Jesus Christ and what He had to say, not what a man of God has to say. This is not an attempt to completely dismiss religious leaders, but is further evidence of what happens when ego is more important than the work of Christ.
And then of course doesn’t see the problem with quoting the Bible in the next paragraph since now we are to listen to what this man of God has to say.
Oh and remember that Catholics are not encouraged to read the scriptures even though scripture reading is indulgenced or that Catholics hear more scripture at Mass then the average Protestant Church.
Jimmy Akin is up in arms and wants to write a response to this.
Rich Leonardi has coined a great word "Orientemophobia." This word of course applies to how every article on the the extraordinary form of the Mass for the Latin rite must mention that the priest has his back to the people. He also provides a great example of Orientemophobia in the caption of a picture for a news story.
This reminded me of something else. Have you ever been in one of those common new church architecture styles where the Church is laid out like a fan auditorium style and the where the priest during the homily tries to make eye contact with everyone? I call this Ad Oscillating where the priest acts just likes one of those lawn sprinklers that slowly rotates around 180 degrees and then starts over again. There is this precise semi-shuffle as the priest slowly rotates on his axis so that he can make eye contact with all parts of the Church.
A reader sent me a ZENIT piece of an interview with Dominican Father Augustine Di Noia, undersecretary of the doctrinal congregation concerning the new CDF document. Some have wondered about the timing of the document.
Q: Why was it decided to have this document come out at this time?
Father Di Noia: That’s an important question.
I suppose it has to do with the reaction to an earlier document, the famous " Dominus Iesus" that came out, if you recall, in 2000.
I remember that when I was working for the bishops’ conference in the United States, and we had received advanced copies of this document, and I was asked to prepare the bishops for " Dominus Iesus," I said well, there is absolutely nothing new here, so the bishops will be fine with it. But as you know, the reaction to " Dominus Iesus" was extremely, let’s say, contestative. I mean, it was a very difficult document.
What we saw was the people […] didn’t understand that not simply we had to speak of Christ as being the universal savior, but that the Church was the principle means by which the grace of Christ would be communicated to the world, and that, if you recall, created most of the controversy, certainly ecumenically.
So this was kind of a wake-up call. I’d say that "Dominus Iesus" was a wake-up call, that 30 years after Vatican II, people seemed to have forgotten something very essential that Vatican II taught. And so it was out of that moment that the cardinal members of the congregation — and also other people, bishops and so on, raising questions about this — the congregation decided to proceed with a clarification.
The document is called "Responses to [Some] Questions Regarding Certain Aspects of the Doctrine on the Church." It is a very narrow point, it’s a relatively short document, as you know, and the commentary attached, so it’s a very precise set of responses to questions that have arisen.
Because the easiest way to commit controversy in the Church is to restate something she has always believed.
Many people also have raised the issue of ecumenical dialogue and this interview also addresses it. This type of question has always confused me. It it is as if ecumenical dialogue is to conducted in the mode of a used car salesman. "This Church has only been visited on Sundays by old ladies." That the only way to dialogue is to play down what we really believe and to ignore what they believe. The old bait and switch. I would have thought that complete honest was the best form of dialogue.
In related news Phillip Blosser points to a piece in Christianity Today by Stan Guthrie on the CDF document. While Mr. Guthri certainly doesn’t accept the Church’s teaching he doesn’t get worked up over it and appreciates the "bright lines" drawn and know that they are restatements.
Update: Fr. Powell posts on the article and says much better what I was trying to say.