Posted on 07/27/2005 1:05:40 PM PDT by GF.Regis
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.
I asked: "Why do people care so passionately and angrily about this sort of thing either way?"
You replied: "Because forms matter more than loving one's neighbor which is what real Christianity is about."
But how does the priest's facing the congregation or having his back to them have anything to do with increasing or lessening the love of one's neighbor?
I can understand that people don't like change and get angry when they think change is foisted on them against their comfort level. That doesn't exactly explain for me why people get so very angry over this particular thing.
It's sort of like the hymn that sings the words of the 91st Psalm. I don't know why the 91st Psalm gets people so dramatically exercised. The words are uplifting, and the music is not terrible. It just seems to be a red flag symbolic thing that gets people angrier than I understand.
But likewise, I can't see how the priest facing the congregation as he performs the consecration improves "loving one's neighbor" or better advances "what Christianity is all about". I fail to see the connection.
Do you think that the priest's back crushes out the Christian spirit, but his face improves upon it?
I am not being willfully obtuse here.
It just strikes me that this business about the way the priest faces and the excessive anger about the 91st Psalm hymn are just symbols for things that really bother people.
And it strikes me that a redirect would not be such a bad thing.
It just seems crabby to get so angry over such a minor thing.
And I quite like the song, actually.
*Gasp*!!!
I'm shocked! Shocked that you don't know this line from Casablanca (ranked #2 on the American Film Institute's List of 100 Greatest American Movies)!
And after consideration, it will probably be left up to the local ordinaries to implement some watered down version of whatever is accepted for use in each country.
Also read in another article that Ratzinger is considering limited decentralization of power. That's good for negotiations with the Orthodox but bad news for catholics under liberal bishops.
Catholic Ping
Please freepmail me if you want on/off this list
So I see.
Yes, you are correct.
This was my error.
I was quoting from the original text, and actually copied more than I intended to.
Therefore, I will amend my original post to eliminate the offending part that I didn't really intend to include:
"'...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...'
What difference does it make which way the priest faces?
Why do people care so passionately and angrily about this sort of thing either way?"
That's what I wanted to ask about.
I can see why it would be angering to read in an article that "Vatican II decreed" something that, in fact, Vatican II did not decree. Especially when the false statement was made as part of the structure of an argument designed to bolster belief in the "fact" which was actually untrue. And to the extent that I included that snippet in my original post, it was legitimate to correct the error in the original article and get annoyed when I didn't acknowledge the correction. I apologize for the poor proofreading which put more onto the table that I intended to. I didn't realize I had done that.
Vatican II did not require the priest to face the congregation, and it's not right to say it did.
I agree.
It matters to not say that Vatican II said what it didn't say.
I also agree with that. Making up history to bolster an argument and relying upon the ignorance of the audience is a bad thing.
But all that aside why does it really matter which way the priest faces?
Apparently, the Pope stands accused by this writer of...Catholicism.
Just IMAGINE that???!!! [irony] I mean, can you believe it - a Pope who dares to be Catholic???
These whiny liberals are too much! And they take themselves way too seriously. Maybe he's upset about the Pope sending out the pink slips for the Kumbaya mafia. Or the rumored crackdown on fruitcakes on the way.
BUMP!
me too
It makes a great deal of difference.
The priest is not only 'alter Christus' but is leading his flock in prayer. The position of "leadership" requires followers...at his back. Symbol #1.
Conversely, when the priest faces the people, the people by nature look at the priest's face. This changes the APPARENT focus of the priest's prayers to 'the people.' Thus, we have a "horizontalism" by positioning, which is not in harmony with the prayers by their actual text, as the prayers address God, not the people.
So either by the proper function of the priest (#1, leader) or by the contradiction of "facing the people" while actually "praying to God," the 'versus populum' is questionable.
In other words, the "form" does not follow the "function" in the facing-the-people position.
Often times, the priest is sitting (or standing) there with nothing to do. He'll be able to take these duties back very easily, thank you!
Interesting.
Do you think that this symbolic understanding ought to result in a mandatory facing for the priest?
From their site:
A private, Catholic, coeducational, residential, comprehensive university...
The Journalism professors at John Paul the Great Catholic University will actually be Catholic.
Imagine that!
What really has not been mentioned as a simple fact is that the supposed Vatican II reforms actually take the focus from God. It's all distraction from the real reason we are at Mass and that is to worship God. For that reason and that reason alone, voluntarily some of us have gone "back" to the old ways (post-Vatican I brat that I am, I've simply adopted them).
"You can't shake someone's hand? If not, what are you getting out of the Mass?"
The purpose of the worshipping God is not to get, but to worship God.
If you have to get something like a handshake out of common prayer, you already have some very serious issues with your religion.
Hold that thought and bring it to mind the next time you meet with an Orthodox Christian over a cup of coffee.
"Any churches rebelling against tradition aren't REALLY part of the church anyway, they're rebelling, they're PROTESTING against the Catholic doctrine."
This is wrong on so many levels, it's hard to know where to begin.
This guy must be a screaming lib pseudo-Catholic along the lines of Kerry, Teddy K. and the Liturgical Dance Team.
It doesn't until you end up arguing with people who don't agree with your idea of how the priest should face. I don't care which way he faces. We aren't told explicitly which way Jesus faced, but I doubt he turned his back to the apostles when he gave them the bread of life and the cup. I don't care. It's a nonissue with me.
It was ordered, and orders must be followed, even though it isn't clear what all the reams of documents coming out of Vatican II really said about it, if anything. Following orders, rules, and forms are more important than being nice to people and refusing to shake hands with them at mass because they didn't used to do it that way. Do you get the connection or have I gone completely off the deep end?
The words are uplifting, and the music is not terrible. It just seems to be a red flag symbolic thing that gets people angrier than I understand.
People get locked into thinking a certain way and don't like their boats rocked. Palestrino or guitars? The earliest masses had neither, and they seemed to do all right for a short while. Then the bickering began and has only worsened over 2000 years.
But likewise, I can't see how the priest facing the congregation as he performs the consecration improves "loving one's neighbor" or better advances "what Christianity is all about". I fail to see the connection.
Because they hate you if you disagree with them. It isn't only about which way the priest faces. It's about a myriad of other things.
Do you think that the priest's back crushes out the Christian spirit, but his face improves upon it?
No, why would it? Now other behaviors of priests can definitely crush the spirit out of people. I just don't want God to turn his back on me because I got so finicky I rejected the rest of humanity as inferiors who weren't worth bothering with and were hellbound because they didn't belong to the right religion, and if they did, weren't part of the "select few" who got everything just right and care more about which way the priest faces than who they hurt.
And I quite like the song, actually.
You brought it up. I didn't, as I don't know the song, but I can read the psalm. I don't care what music they use so long as it is respectful. Guitars are fine with me. Pianos, harpsichords, lyres (don't have that any more), flutes, oboes, violins; none of it bothers me. Drums I can do without as they are too much like the base on rap music I am forced to listen to in the car going along next to me and then being stuck at a red light right next to them.
Some things said here have gotten me so upset (there is little love of neighbor here except on the prayer threads) that I mentioned them to my Catholic therapist and my sister. They both asked me, "Why do you talk to those people?" Ans. It's a conservative forum, and I'm conservative about a lot of things, some things the pope says like fetal stem cell research, surrogate parenting (a slippery slope to me), cloning, and not buying a book that makes Muslims mad made sense to me. I won't go into what made one of them throw me out of the church.
I was trying to return to the church, but I don't know if I will ever go back. It's too confusing and inhospitable with all the bickering and has made me literally ill, as I can't handle conflict. Polite disagreements I can handle quite nicely. Hateful words hurt, sometimes for weeks.
I decided how we treat other people, including the dregs of humanity, is more important than what goes on at mass. I think it's supposed to be about worshipping God, but I'll be darned if I ever figured out how to worship God "in spirit and in truth" in that climate.
"Following orders, rules, and forms are more important than being nice to people and refusing to shake hands with them at mass because they didn't used to do it that way. Do you get the connection or have I gone completely off the deep end?"
I get the connection, and I agree with the sentiment, except with the caveat that it seems to me that what's important is to be nice to people AND to follow orders, rules and forms, both. It seems to me that the essence of shrugging one's shoulders and following the orders, rules and forms ordained by superior authority is an important part of the obedient humility that we are supposed to learn on earth.
And in that vein, it strikes me that having a preference is ok, but becoming partisan about that preference past the point that you are willing to humbly submit to the priests and bishops even when they tell you to do things you don't want to do is insufficiently humble.
"You brought it up. I didn't, as I don't know the song, but I can read the psalm."
You know the hymn, you just don't know that you know it.
The 91st psalm set to music is "Eagles' Wings".
I like "Eagles' Wings". I think it is inspiring. The words are because they are, after all, the Inspired Word of God. And the music fits them.
A lot of people just positively HATE that particular hymn.
I understand that what's at work is not the hymn, but symbolism.
"I won't go into what made one of them throw me out of the church."
Somebody physically removed you from a church?
Go to a different one.
That's what I've always thought up until lately. Now I don't allow myself to think about it and seldom post in any religion forum.
The 91st psalm set to music is "Eagles' Wings".
Oh, that one. I love it, and used to love to play it. Music died when my spirit died, so I don't play any more.
A lot of people just positively HATE that particular hymn.
I know. But I try not to dislike them for it.
Somebody physically removed you from a church?
Verbally, on this forum.
Go to a different one.
That's what my sister suggested, but she meant a Protestant church.
I don't want to go to any church right now. I wish I could talk to St. Peter about it and ask his advice, but that's not possible.
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.