Vatican II's Golden Jubilee

Vatican II’s Golden Jubilee

 The fuss about the new liturgical translation and changes that flourished last Fall seems to have petered out. We have much more publicity about the campaign for religious freedom this month. It is not doctrinal teaching even though the fervor with which it is presented at mass might suggest it is. Actually the Scriptural admonition "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's" could be construed as "Stay out of politics". But that might involve taking the Scriptures too literally to suit our purpose.

It is also noticeable that the current campaign is organized and pushed by the USCC, the American bishops, not by the Pope or the Church Hierarchy in Rome, undoubtedly an exercise in the recently neglected principle of subsidiarity. (If you don't remember the "principle of subsidiarity", look it up.) It was formally enunciated by Pius XI in the 1930's and strongly endorsed at Vatican II, but conveniently forgotten since then. It says that if you are the people most affected by a law or rule, then you should have a voice in formulating the rule. Of course this would mean that married couples should have a say in discussing contraception, priests in discussing celibacy, nuns in discussing revisions of their bye-laws. 

However I meant to comment on the liturgical restorationism. I understand that it was a gesture to the Society of St. Pius X, which has never accepted the liturgical changes of Vatican II. It seems that pacifying those who reject Church teaching is a greater priority than avoiding the loss of those who have remained faithful to the Church.

.William Dantonio describes the latter as: those who had one foot in the old Latin Mass church and the other foot in the new English-language Mass church. “These were the Catholics most clearly influenced by the changes brought on by the documents and the spirit of Vatican II. Events showed them to be the most active in moving away from being just “pray, pay and obey” Catholics. They became “the people of God,” with emphasis on the community of believers rather than the pre-Vatican II emphasis on priests and religious as somehow closer to God by virtue of their status in the church.”

They had embraced the teaching of the council, most enthusiastically the reformed liturgy in the vernacular. The Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy was the first council document published on 12/4/63 and it states (2,14) "the full and active participation of all the people is the aim to be considered before all else". This was evident in their wholehearted involvement in the liturgical responses, actions and music, in the variety and quality of such responses and particularly in the spontaneity of such reactions.

Inevitably such public identification with the renewed liturgy became the focus of those who rejected Vatican II and all it stood for. Spontaneity in celebration had to be banned, joyful and enthusiastic hymns outlawed, only fully pre-choreographed activities involving a careful walk between the lines permitted.. The reverent assembly circling the altar during the canon was abandoned (only ordained ministers were allowed in the sanctuary), the chaotic sign of peace was reined in, communion under both species no longer permitted. The special character and status of the clergy must be maintained.

Next year we will celebrate the publication of the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy with nothing left to celebrate. Maybe we need a John XXIII Society to refuse to abandon what the Church taught 50 years ago!

Philadelphia Veredict

The veredict is in in the trial of the Vicar for Religious in the Archdiocese of Philadelphia. Guilty! But the veredict is not about Monsignor Lynn who did what he was told by his Archbishop, Cardinal Bevilacqua, who happily died before the trial; it is about all those who lied and covered-up the abusers of children in their care because their religious superiors told them to and it is about those superiors who prefessed ignorance and refused to listen to reports of such abuses by highly plsaced, wealthy and influential figures in the Church. It is about the cult of "clericalism" in the Church which exempted this special caste from the demands of moral decency and civil law.

As a Catholic I am proud of onr thing about this trial: the prosecutor is a Catholic layman who faithfully carried out his duty in spite of the pressure he undoubtedly experienced in doing so. I presume that some of the jurors were also Catholic. It is a sad contrast with the performance of our moral leaders who failed everyone, the children, themselves, the Church by their prevarications and carefully crafted denials of facts.

But the case for the defence accurately poimted the finger at who was ultimately responsible for Msgr Lynn's actions: his boss, the late Cardinal, who determined policies and made final decisions on all those actions. Despite clear statements on the right and responsibility of the individual to follow their conscience, Church authorities from the pope down demand unquestioning obedience to their commands. Ask the LCWR, ask Hans Kung or Charles Curran.

Coincidentally the NCR this week published a review by Jason Berry of a book about the Legion of Christ and the life of their founder,Marcial Maciel Delgallado. It describes in great detail the efforts of many priests to tell Pope John Paul II from 1998 until his death about Maciel's abuse of his followers and his manipulation of supporters. John Paul II refused to hear their accounts and continued to praise Maciel as an example to others. Several authority figures in the Vatican who profited from their relationship with Maciel refused meet with or hear those who made these reports.

To the credit of Benedict XVI, he listened and removed Macial from power, but he does not seem to grasp the failure of John Paul II to act upon reports. He is still surrounded by toadys of his predecessor and seeks to canonize John Paul II, to hold him up as a model, especially to those who exercise authority in the Church. God save us from more unresponsive leaders. We have enough already.

Bishops' Lawsuit

I have very ambivalent feelings about the bishops' suit against Obamacare. On one hand I see medical care for all as good and desirable. On the other I see that current interpretations of the law could destroy the religious freedom enshrined in the constitution.

To force Muslims to eat pork obviously violates their religious convictions. To force them to provide pork for others to eat is less obvious.  However if we frame the question in terms of "Should we pay to provide guns to Al_Quaida or Mexican drug dealers?" the answer iis simpler: NO! Our country has a history of recognizing consciencious objections to  killing. even murderers. These are grounds for excluding someone from jury duty in capital cases.

 On the other hand the explanation that paying for others' contraceptives violates my religious convictions seems very flimsy. Jesus never mentioned contraception. It is generally accepted that up to 80% of Catholics do not see contraception as morally wrong. Vatican Council II never dealt with the topic (Pope Paul VI removed the topic from its consideration). A panel appointed by Pope Paul VI studied the topic and made a report, generally recommending that contraception be accepted as a method of family planning. However, the pope never published the report but issued a personal ban on contraception. This was not a doctrinal decision, infallibility was not involved and all the subsequent statements and controversies on the topic have changed nothing.

We are not dealing with essential Church doctrine when we talk about contraception. I am not promoting or recommending contraception as the .most desirable or effective method of family planning.  In  the judgement of  the pope and of many  committed Catholics  it is morally wrong, but that is an opinion and it is not the doctrine of the Church.

However, there is more to the current controversy than contraception. There is the issue of abortion and the obligation the law imposes to pay for it. If as a mobster I pay a goon to murder a rival gangster, I am guilty of murder. If I pay to procure an abortion, I likewise share the guilt. The state says that Churches will not have to pay for the abortion, the insurance company will. "Out of the goodness of its heart", I'm sure! The Church will pay through higher premiums.

Another issue seems to be a redefinition of "religion" and "church", limiting them to what occurs in the church sanctuary. Services the church provides, such as education, health and social services are excluded from this new definition.

So I'm ambivalent. I have problems with the Church's involvement in partisan politics. It diminishes the Church's prestige and the credibility of the bishops. We don't trust politicians, even when they trumpet their faith. This is an area where lay organizations like the Knights of Columbus and others should be carrying the ball, not the bishops. They should be the coaches, enunciating the moral principles, not the linemen in the trenches.

(P,S. I note that the CHA (Catholic Health Association) has taken such action in an objection filed today, 6/15/2012)

                         Trauma's effects

 I was just thinking about family ties and support, especially who becomes a surrogate Dad or Mom when a parent dies and leaves a young child. Actually I was thinking of John the Baptist. His parents were in their old age when Elizabeth became pregnant with John and they probably did not see him grow up.

Mary was much younger than Elizabeth, although close to her cousin, so that she went to visit her when told of Elizabeth's pregnancy.  Although they apparently did not live close to each other, in the normal course of events they would have stayed in contact and their sons would have probably met from time to time. John would certainly have been among the brothers of Jesus mentioned in the New Testament.

 Since their boys were the same age Mary would have been concerned for John when his parents died. Did she and Joseph consider fostering the orphan? Would such a solution have been possible? Did John spend some time with his cousin? We don't know.

 How did John survive? How did losing his parents at an early age affect him?  Today we hear about the traumatic effect of losing a parent. So often traumatic loss is offered as an excuse for delinquent behaviors, drug addiction, alcoholism etc.. But just as often the victim instead of turning inward to brood on his own loss turns to others who have endured similar losses to help them cope with their pain. We all have choices to make, to become a victim or to help one.

 John seems to have been a loner as he grew up, living in the wilderness, usually depicted as what we would regard as a long-haired hippie. But there is no evidence of delinquency or addiction. In fact he drank no alcohol, ate no rich foods, lived simply.

We do know how he died.  He condemned wrong-doing by a powerful political figure and was imprisoned and eventually executed for doing so. Of him Jesus said: "among those born of woman there was none greater than John the Baptist!"

Church Shopping (4)

                                 Church Shopping (4)

The program I described also demonstrated the abandonment of the principle of subsidiarity, that decisions should involve those who must implement them and be made at the lowest level possible, It was imposed from the top without consultation as to the need or the appropriateness of the material.

No two communities are identical in their needs or their composition and such programs should be tailored to the needs and also to the abilities of the participants. Many parishes must adapt their programs to accommodate different levels of spiritual maturity as well as educational backgrounds.

Perhaps what I am saying is that while the neophyte may be seeking an introduction to Christ for the first time, others may be seeking a deeper personal relationship with Him and a fuller understanding of His Gospel. If a church or the church community is not prepared to respond to this search, the seeker may go elsewhere, to another church of the same or of another denomination. If we fail to meet this need, which is actually universal, we tend to blame the seeker, but the failure us ours. Since only 50% of those who leave join another church, we all fail the other 50%.

But if we meet the need, if we have a warm, vibrant, welcoming community, if the joy and love of Christ is evident in our celebrations, and His message is faithfully and enthusiastically proclaimed in the homily, then the seeker has found a home where their faith is fed and nurtured and grows to maturity and bears fruit in abundance.

Doctrinal orthodoxy, a Scripture-based theology, may be what the visitor is seeking, but it also seems that the presentation of the message, the welcome and the friendly atmosphere in which it is communicated may be the factor which determines the choice. Only you can provide that.

(The end.)

Church Shopping (3)

                            Church shopping (3)

 Christ told His Apostles to go and teach all nations, so sharing the gospel is essential to the Church’s role. Church schools, preaching and Sunday school all obey this command. But I feel that we are failing in the area of ongoing faith formation for adults, particularly doctrinal education. After Vatican II there were efforts to provide such programs , but as time passed , the initial fervor waned and religious formation reverted to a formal and legalistic presentation of traditional apologetics.

The bishops have  initiated a program to call Catholics who have drifted away from the Church to come home and many parishes are making an effort to welcome home the prodigal sons and daughters. I was recently irked by a national program, ostensibly of renewal, which would have delighted Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre or Fr. Leonard Feeney. Its focus was what to do as a Catholic rather than why one should be a Catholic.  It was an exercise in ecclesiastical narcissism rather than evangelism. My initial misgivings arose when a presentation on the program never mentioned Vatican Council II.  These sessions were supposed to explain our faith and renew the spiritual life of our parish, but it became clear that it was merely a make-over of a generation-old program which I believe was very successful in its time. However, times have changed.  As an inducement to come home it elicited a big yawn: "Why?'

The program concentrated on “How to” rather than “Why.” The content was similar to what I got in my third grade catechism seventy years ago.  Reading it one would never know that Vatican II occurred. There was no mention of ecumenism, of the empowerment of the laity, of liturgical changes, of freedom of conscience. It was a repeat of the old caricature that the role of laity in the Church was to “pay, pray and obey.” There was no recognition that since Vatican II Catholics have learned to think for themselves, to make their own decisions and to be responsible before God for their own actions. They are no longer a nineteenth century Church of illiterate immigrants looking to their priests to tell them what to do. They are successful, intelligent, well-educated men and women who do not need the hierarchy to micromanage their personal lives or their relationship with God.

 Richard McBrien in The Church expresses it well:”Educated Catholics still look to the Church for moral guidance but they are searching for principles not rules.” Incidentally the booklets used for the six sessions of the program cost $10.00 each ($60.00 total) while copies of McBrien’s The Church could probably have been purchased in bulk for less than half that cost and would have presented a far more complete exposition on the Church.

I have reviewed  other materials from Catholic and non-Catholic sources which are solidly Christian in content and present a far more inviting image of the Church than the rigid, comdemning institution  which many deserted years ago. We need to love the Church, not fear it and that is the message which we need to share. Above all those who come need to hear that we welcome them, we  accept them, we listen to them and we love them.

 (To be concluded)

Church Shopping (2)

                               Church Shopping (2)

Scandles however are not the major cause of leakage if faced honestly and dealt with promptly. In most cases loyal parishioners will close ranks and pick up the pieces. According to a national survey in 2011, 70% of those who left Catholicism for another church say they did so because their spiritual needs were not being met.  Richard Gaillardetz, professor of theology at Boston College, explains this as “because the quality of Church life is poor and church leadership is inattentive to their real pastoral concerns.” By “quality” he seems to refer to teaching, preaching or community life and liturgy. My personal experience suggests that the quality of the preaching has improved but that the content has not. Homilies are more Scripture based and better prepared, but still comfortable and unchallenging. Community life and liturgy have deteriorated in the last thirty years.  Gaillardetz also points out that our hierarchy seems to focus its recent teaching on abortion, same-sex marriage and artificial birth control – all serious issues but indicative of an emphasis on human sexuality --while ignoring other issues including clerical pedophilia, which is disturbing to many. Twenty years ago the Church dealt with human life as a “seamless garment” that included issues of war and peace, capital punishment and social justice, which are still critical but no longer a priority from the bishops’ perspective.

I am impressed by the emphasis on ongoing adult religious education and formation by many other Christian communities in their Sunday School programs and various groups which focus on Scripture study and family living and by their outreach through home and foreign mission trips. I welcome the efforts which have developed to build such programs among Catholics, though I think more home visits by pastors or parish associates would be more effective in building up the parish community. I know it worked in the past. A priest and his parishioners can get to know each other, to share their needs and vision, far more effectively in the family living-room than from the pulpit to the pew. People will utter criticisms far more easily and honestlyin the privacy  of their home than in public.

Other churches utilize home visit programs with sufficient frequency to suggest that it still works. I think the social gospel of the Church has been reasonably promoted in spite of the amount that is still lacking.  The current economic recession has demonstrated that Christians of all denominations have grasped their responsibility for those who are hungry or homeless. I realize that Christ told us we would never get it perfectly: “The poor you have always with you.”

(To be continued)