MOUNTAIN VIEWS: NEW POPE TO TURN BACK THE CLOCK ON REFORMS IN CATHOLIC CHURCH?

OLEAN -- Various columnists for this paper already covered the making of a new pope last spring to a fare-thee-well, driving the tormented editor to declare an informal moratorium on writing further copy about the pomp and circumstance surrounding Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger's ascension to Benedict XVI.

We complied. So, in general, did the rest of the American print media, which these days, sadly, are trained by watching too much television to ignore anything that doesn't photograph well, or lend itself to colorful video, or where religion is concerned doesn't contain elements of movement and ceremony.

But in recent weeks, I've noticed a few short items creeping onto inside pages about the Holy Father's vision -- predicted here and elsewhere -- of a venerable Roman Catholic Church that more resembles the one of four decades ago instead of a global organization struggling to accept elements of modernity.

Starting the first week in October, a synod of Catholic bishops from around the world will meet in Rome to plot the future of the church under Ratzinger's leadership. A hefty working text has already been prepared for official consideration, and some sections have sporadically leaked to the Vatican press -- enough to suggest that Benedict XVI has no intention of mellowing from the hardrock conservative positions he held in his previous position as Prefect for the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, a Vatican office tracing its pedigree directly back to the Inquisition.

Bottom line: Pope John XXIII's liberal changes stemming from the Vatican II conclave to take into account this planet's social and cultural and scientific developments not previously sanctioned by Rome are in deep trouble.

There are some key words in the working text that constitute predictable indicators -- some superficial, some profound. The "translations" below are my predictions, not actual descriptions in the Vatican document of suggestions.

Parish priests will be urged to prevent "profane" types of music from being played during Mass. Translation: Lose the guitars, flutes and drums, boys. It's back to Gregorian chants (which are specifically mentioned in the aforesaid text as more appropriate).

The tabernacle, a large container -- usually bejeweled and gold-plated -- which holds the wheat wafer Host that devout Catholics believe is the actual (not representative) body of Christ after consecration, must be given a "prominent" position on the altar instead of the corner or side repository popular after Vatican II. Translation: Altars, with the tabernacle right in the center as unmistakable focal point, will be turned back around to allow the priest to celebrate Mass in relative solitude with his back to the congregation, instead of facing and speaking directly to the faithful as Vatican II decreed.

Lay persons will participate in the Mass only in a "minimal" fashion. Translation: No more reading of Scripture lessons by members of the congregation, or carrying of the wine and water up the aisle to facilitate Holy Communion, or letting the non-ordained help distribute the Eucharist during that sacrament. Priests only, please, just like in the old days.

During "liturgical gatherings," Latin will be relied upon as the universal tongue instead of English and other regional languages. Translation: A return during celebration of Mass to the Latin liturgy, viewed as confusing mumbo-jumbo by many Catholics before Vatican II, cannot be far behind.

Priests should not be "showmen." Translation: All those brave fathers in Central and South America and Africa and elsewhere who have the courage to question corrupt and dictatorial governments, or the temerity to suggest social and cultural reform, will be muzzled.

The working document, by the way, singles out Catholic politicians who support abortion and divorced persons who remarry for particular criticism and specific proscription against receiving the sacrament of Holy Communion without first making a true confession to a priest. This will also affect various areas of the planet where an acute shortage of priests has triggered the practice of taking Communion after making one's peace with God in one's mind because the preparatory sacrament of confession simply isn't available.

Some Catholics, particularly elderly ones, would welcome these changes, whether they actually occur or not. Many of them hate the Vatican II reforms. I was sitting next to my late beloved and curmudgeonly father in the early 1970s when a bearded guitar-wielder first strode to the altar to play some inspirational song of hope. My father actually stood up in the pew to leave before my mother dragged him back down to the kneeling bench.

I also secretly prized during those days the frequent look of repugnance on his face during the newly instituted "kiss of peace," which soon evolved into a hearty-handshake-with-those-nearby section of the Mass. My father was one of the friendliest gentlemen on earth; he just liked to reserve his handshakes for persons he knew, or trusted, or was happy to see.

Casting aside all the paternal nostalgia, I'm wary of Benedict XVI's plans. This is a man whose mind sees cultural development as conspiracy.

He still condemns the use of condoms to fight AIDS in Africa. He's already bounced, without adequate explanation, the respected editor of a liberal Jesuit magazine in this country.

Many Catholics are unaware that Ratzinger even criticized the immensely popular Harry Potter books as harmful to children.

In a letter of praise two years ago to a narrow-minded German critic of author J.K. Rowling, then-Cardinal Ratzinger described her astoundingly successful books as "subtle seductions" for youths and works that "act unnoticed and by this deeply distort Christianity in the soul, before it can grow properly."

Get real. I personally think J.K. Rowling deserves some Nobel-level award for becoming a one-woman assault squad on illiteracy. Do you know how hard it is to pry kids away from the TV or iPod or cell phone and get them to actually read a book? The numbers are there. Rowling actually has children reading again, using their TV-stunted imaginations anew to convert print into thought, to transform type into imagery. Her harmless books are stimulating and superbly written, and most children understand they are merely interesting works of fantasy about magic and good and evil and pretend sorcery -- stuff kids are intrigued by and will find anyway.

If the new pope really wants to do some good in this vein, he should take a gander at the hideously violent and often demonically promotional TV fare that is available to the majority of toddlers and youngsters in this country. Talk then about conditioning senses and warping vulnerable minds.

In his years as a promising priest and bishop, Ratzinger was viewed as somewhat of a liberal and reform-minded theologian. He once wrote a short book that viewed Vatican II with enthusiasm and promise. In his previous post as protector of the faith, however, the native of Germany became more and more conservative until he was known and routinely described as "God's Rottweiler" -- a ferocious defender of venerable Vatican views and practices.

In an excellent article in the July 25 edition of the "New Yorker" magazine, Anthony Grafton describes him in this role as "a snapping guard dog who threatens all dissidents with appropriate punishment." Ratzinger, writes Grafton, "was a censor, and he did his job well."

Since last April, Catholic writers around the world, particularly in Europe and North America, in article after article, have speculated that Ratzinger will realize he is now the spiritual head of the oldest and largest religious organization on the planet and -- as the "New Yorker" writer puts it -- will now "show a milder countenance in his new office." Not very likely. As Grafton writes, Ratzinger has repeatedly denounced "the intellectuals who confused social reform with Christianity" and is at heart himself fearful about intellectual conclusions.

"The intellect," he once told a gathering of about 800 priests, "does not always grant vision, but provides the conditions for intellectual games, and artfully conjures syntheses into existence where there is really nothing but contradiction." Only faith, believes the new pope, will abide.

I agree with author Grafton. A prelate who's fearful that Harry Potter books will block the spiritual growth of young Christians "may find it harder than he thinks to take on modernity in all its sprawling strangeness."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- John Hanchette, a professor of journalism at St. Bonaventure University, is a former editor of the Niagara Gazette and a Pulitzer Prize-winning national correspondent. He was a founding editor of USA Today and was recently named by Gannett as one of the Top 10 reporters of the past 25 years. He can be contacted via e-mail at Hanchette6@aol.com.

What difference does it make which way the priest faces?

The current configuration is in conflict with most of Church history. Before, the priest and the people faced the same direction, (in most cases, east, because from the perspective of Jerusalem, the Mount of Olives, were Jesus ascended into heaven, is east of the city. It is also the direction where the sun rises (Christ is the Light of the World)).

In the 1942 Humphrey Bogart film Casablanca (Here), Claude Rains plays a police chief "Captain Renault" who at one point in the film announces (ironically), "I'm shocked! Shocked to find gambling going on here!" - as an excuse to shut down a nightclub after patrons have annoyed the occupying Nazis by singing the French National anthem in defiance of the German occupation of the city.

It proves a useful line whenever someone says something overtly idiotic or naive. Like...being shocked that the head of the Catholic Church would stand up for moral principles against, say, secular modernity, as in this article.

Lose the guitars, flutes and drums, boys!

Death to the "folk music" mass!!!!

My parish has at least 40 "musicians" who participate in mass each week................

I guess they're going to have to go back to using their envelopes.....................

"If not, what are you getting out of the Mass?"

I'm sorry, I agree with ninenot. Mass is about Communion and communion with God, it is not really a "fellow ship" experience. That is all very nice, and fine in its proper place, but that is not Mass.

The only time that handshake bit DIDN'T bother was when I went to Mass in New Orleans, it seemed much more natural in a Southern surrounding. But that Mass, in the Catherdral on Easter Sunday was one of exactly TWO bearable English languages Masses I've ever been to, the other was a banging Irish funeral for my boss. That's it, two out of however man.

"We care because the center of attention of the Mass is not supposed to be an MC jawing at us, but priest and people jointly facing and focusing on the Blessed Sacrament."

But why isn't the center of attention still the Sacrament?

He is holding it up, saying the prayers, etc.
How is his back or his front changing the center of attention?

I can speak directly of the Milwaukee situation.

"What ha[s] he done?"

Precisely, damn little. He appointed two new men to Seminary posts--one came from Louvain, (vocations director) and the other from a parish assignment (formation director.) This last I know to be a VERY solid man.

That's about it, in two+ years.

Two weeks ago, I attended a service in a Catholic church. In the bulletin, it said "Mass," but it was invalid--so it was a service.

In order: no Penitential Rite, no Gloria (SUNDAY!!), no Creed, Offertory prayers were off-the-cuff (and in reverse order) Canon was off-the-cuff, including the Consecration; at the Our Father the "priest" skipped the embolism and went directly to the Prot version of the extended ending, and he (finally!) made up his own formula for the Blessing.

I know as a matter of fact that this particular "priest" has been reported to the Chancery before this.

(sound of crickets chirping...)

While at the same time, TWO solid and orthodox African priests were told "we don't need your steeenkin' help" by our Chancery--when all they needed was 2+ years' work to finance their advanced degrees at Marquette U.

"What difference does it make which way the priest faces?

The current configuration is in conflict with most of Church history. Before, the priest and the people faced the same direction, (in most cases, east, because from the perspective of Jerusalem, the Mount of Olives, were Jesus ascended into heaven, is east of the city. It is also the direction where the sun rises (Christ is the Light of the World))."

Ok, those are good reasons to want to do it that way.
But are they reasons to get angry for it being done differently?

I continue to maintain (as does Benedict, I think) that the problem is NOT "Vatican II," but rampant, unchecked, materialism and prosperity to support it.

The G-d of America is NOT the G-d of Abraham, nor the G-d-man, Christ.

But if this Pope returns the Latin Mass, gets rid of the horrid felt banners, gets the blue jean wearing "attendants" off the alter, and returns the appearance of the church to the way it should be

If "this Pope" can do all of that, he can also turn rocks into fishes and fix droughts and floods with a wave of his hand.

Why do people care so passionately and angrily about this sort of thing either way?

Because forms matter more than loving one's neighbor which is what real Christianity is about.

It's very pleasing to God to genuflect properly and have the mass said in the language of Jesus' killers and then can't even be nice to the people in the pew next to them, not to mention how they probably treat others in the world, on the net, in restaurants, in stores, and judge anyone who doesn't think exactly like them or the pope as being hellbound.

"First off, "Vatican II" did NOT, EVER, ANYPLACE, "decree" that the priest face the people.

After you get History 101, we'll get into Aesthetics, Form, Symbol, and Meaning 101."

I never said it did.
What has made you so angry at me?
All I asked was why it made a difference to some people which way the priest faced.

The "anger" is about the willful distortion and/or disobedience to authority.

We slobs in the pews are expected to put up with this while at the same time obeisantly kissing the shoes of these snot-faced poofter wonks.

I'd rather slap some sense into them, but it would take FAR too long.

This guy gets paid to cherry-pick "disturbing" quotations and put the "creepiest" spin on them?

I guess any journalist with ethics and competence has a hard time competing with the bottom-feeders.

Here, in St. Louis, Archbishop Burke so loves the Latin Mass he has installed the Institute Of Christ the King in its own Oratory, a magnifiscent Church on the city's near south side. The parish is a large and growing one, encompassing all age groups. A preliminary course has also been established to prepare candidates for attendance at the Institute's seminary in Florence. Boston is certainly missing the boat if it shrinks rather than expands the Indult.

He does have a vaguely snippy, mincing, appearance...

Hard to imagine him downing a boilermaker and some Buffalo wings with his colleagues after putting the Niagara Falls Reporter to bed for another day.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.