There has been a lot of talk recently about Pope Benedict XVI and the universal indult. Now, I've heard talk of some sort of juridical structure specifically for the priests who elect to say the Roman Mass, so they will be free from reprisals for doing so. I have never experienced the Old Roman Rite, but I feel a deep spiritual desire to be united with centuries of Christian worship. For this reason I look forward to the possibility that the traditional liturgy will become more available. I have some reservations, however. I worry that we are heading toward two distinct institutions: the "high" (Latin, Old Rite) Catholic Church and the "low" (vernacular, Novus Ordo) Catholic Church. We can see in the Anglican Church this exact phenomenon. This danger seems to be increased by the prospects of a juridical structure outside of regular diocesan structure. Are we headed to a virtual split in the Latin Rite Church akin to the split that exists today between the Latin and Byzantine Rites? If the "high" Catholics leave the "low" Catholic parishes and flee to the Old Rite, what will become of the rank-and-file Churchgoer? Who will moderate the more radical of the liberals in our parishes?
I'm afraid ever since great variations arose between parishes this phenomenon has been growing. Already the idea of the parish as a geographical entity is fading in favor of it as a purely elective community. This mirrors the general replacement of communities with cliques throughout society, and the concurrent increase in mobility, the demise of the extended family, and all that fun stuff. We have to ask ourselves, is allowing the separation of the conservatives from the mainstream (liberal) Catholics another example of the Church caving to the culture of extreme individualism?
Rather, I hope that we could have a situation where one of a parish's many Sunday Masses would be the old Rite. Or, better yet, if there is a true acknowledgement that something great has been lost, we can slowly, organically reintroduce those components into the new canon. It was over intellectualization, and a lack of respect for the power of culture and history, that convinced us that it was okay to "design" our liturgies in the first place. Is it not the case that the liturgy must flow from the action of worship itself, that only when the people are living as Christians will a truly Christian liturgy emerge? If our parishes were full of devote Christians, our liturgies would become a true expression of that devotion. We might be surprised how, if a renewal of faith in the hearts of the Catholic population occurred, the new canon and old might merge, that the distinction between the two would become purely academic, because regardless of which book the priest was reading from, the people would be united in adoration, in prayer, and in Sacrament with the Church past, present, and future.
As people we necessarily live in culture. The inner spirit of the culture is expressed in every action of the people: philosophy, theology, prayer, art, music, politics, family, etc. We must believe in our hearts, to our very core, to the point were our every action is an expression of our membership in the Church of Christ. This expression cannot be translated into intellectual formulations, into mere words; to do this is to raise the intellectual aspect of culture above the rest. It is this error that has led us to believe that as long as the books on the shelves still profess the doctrinal formulations of the Church that we are still Catholic-- this is a mistake. I pray that we are not making the same mistake in advocating the re-introduction of the Old Rite. Let us remember, the vast majority of us have never seen it.
All in all, though, I have to support the return of the Old Rite. But, I fear my reason for this support is persistent hopelessness. Let us pray for Hope.
Friday, February 23, 2007
Thursday, February 22, 2007
Friday, February 16, 2007
It seems to me that the feminist gender theory conviction that gender roles are socially constructed and their conclusion that, therefore, they are artificial and infinitely malleable is seriously flawed. First of all, anyone who believes that men and women do not have genetic differences in their personalities and dispositions is a fool.
I can normally see where people are coming from in their beliefs. I can understand why someone might be a Marxist or even an anarchist; I can understand why someone would be an Atheist. I do not believe people who hold these convictions are necessarily fools. But people who believe there are no innate differences between men and women are fools. Of course there is.
That said, however, my primary objection with the gender role people is not along those lines. In fact, I believe that a great deal of what we understand as the dominant differences between men and women probably are, at least partially, socially constructed. Where I really disagree with them is their equating the socially constructed with the artificial-- With their idea that the socially constructed is a non-essential aspect of humanity.
Mother lions have to teach their cubs how to hunt. It in no way follows that hunting is an artificial and non-essential aspect of what it means to be a lion. In fact, we all recognize that a lion that is born in captivity, or an orphan cub, who never learns to hunt has been robbed of something of what it means to be a lion, and we are right. They are “almost” lions. This is the case because lions are social animals and being a social animal means more than being an animal that happens to share a meal or a den. Social animals require each other. They are not complete without society. A lion, unlike an insect, is not defined completely by their genome, something intrinsic to being a lion resides outside of any given individual, and they share it.
Humans are, of course, far more sophisticated than lions, and far more social. As Aristotle noted a man who lives outside of society is a god or an animal, not a man. This does not mean that we just happen to like each other, or that somewhere along the line, as Locke and Hobbes entertained, a bunch of independent humans came together because it was more profitable. Rather, it means that the very structure of what it means to be a human includes a community. Modern thought, especially linguistics, never tires of driving home the point that culture is an intrinsic component of humanity and not something tacked on, something that can be discarded. Mankind has far less instinct and far more culture than any other animal.
So the assumption that the cultural component of gender roles is necessarily unnatural or imposed is unfounded. Now they would argue that it is at least subject to change, that it is exactly the ability of culture to change that allows for remarkable adaptability of man, and they would be right. It can change. But then the question becomes not whether people reinforce gender roles when they give their daughters dolls and their sons guns, the question is whether these gender roles are like hunting for a lion—whether they are something we can do without, or when we rob a little girl or boy of their culturally conditioned femininity or masculinity they are like the orphan lion cub— sad specimens of “almost” humans. Only in that case what they are expected to live without is the very framework by which we understand social interaction at the most basic level, that of procreation.
Now I think that gender roles are precisely such essential culturally constructed aspects of humanity that work in conjunction with biological facts to create stable, healthy, and happy societies. That I am mistaken in this belief is what feminists have to convince me. Good Luck.
I can normally see where people are coming from in their beliefs. I can understand why someone might be a Marxist or even an anarchist; I can understand why someone would be an Atheist. I do not believe people who hold these convictions are necessarily fools. But people who believe there are no innate differences between men and women are fools. Of course there is.
That said, however, my primary objection with the gender role people is not along those lines. In fact, I believe that a great deal of what we understand as the dominant differences between men and women probably are, at least partially, socially constructed. Where I really disagree with them is their equating the socially constructed with the artificial-- With their idea that the socially constructed is a non-essential aspect of humanity.
Mother lions have to teach their cubs how to hunt. It in no way follows that hunting is an artificial and non-essential aspect of what it means to be a lion. In fact, we all recognize that a lion that is born in captivity, or an orphan cub, who never learns to hunt has been robbed of something of what it means to be a lion, and we are right. They are “almost” lions. This is the case because lions are social animals and being a social animal means more than being an animal that happens to share a meal or a den. Social animals require each other. They are not complete without society. A lion, unlike an insect, is not defined completely by their genome, something intrinsic to being a lion resides outside of any given individual, and they share it.
Humans are, of course, far more sophisticated than lions, and far more social. As Aristotle noted a man who lives outside of society is a god or an animal, not a man. This does not mean that we just happen to like each other, or that somewhere along the line, as Locke and Hobbes entertained, a bunch of independent humans came together because it was more profitable. Rather, it means that the very structure of what it means to be a human includes a community. Modern thought, especially linguistics, never tires of driving home the point that culture is an intrinsic component of humanity and not something tacked on, something that can be discarded. Mankind has far less instinct and far more culture than any other animal.
So the assumption that the cultural component of gender roles is necessarily unnatural or imposed is unfounded. Now they would argue that it is at least subject to change, that it is exactly the ability of culture to change that allows for remarkable adaptability of man, and they would be right. It can change. But then the question becomes not whether people reinforce gender roles when they give their daughters dolls and their sons guns, the question is whether these gender roles are like hunting for a lion—whether they are something we can do without, or when we rob a little girl or boy of their culturally conditioned femininity or masculinity they are like the orphan lion cub— sad specimens of “almost” humans. Only in that case what they are expected to live without is the very framework by which we understand social interaction at the most basic level, that of procreation.
Now I think that gender roles are precisely such essential culturally constructed aspects of humanity that work in conjunction with biological facts to create stable, healthy, and happy societies. That I am mistaken in this belief is what feminists have to convince me. Good Luck.
There has been a lot of talk in the Republican World of nominating Giuliani. The rationalization of supposed pro-lifers is incredible. Many are showing their true stripes as partisans, not principled Christians.
If the Republicans nominate Rudy we should not vote for them. If even a couple percent of the Republican "base" doesn't vote Republican, they will lose. While in the short term that might be bad, in the long run it will force the Republican Party to remain pro-life. What a lot of Pro-lifers do not realize is that the Republican Party, like the Democratic Party, only really believes in its own power. It, as a political institution, views abortion like it does any other issue. If the party believes that pro-lifers will vote for them regardless, and that they can pick up some "moderate" voters by nominating a pro-abortion candidate, they will do it. Pro-lifers must understand this. We must get over partisan loyalty and view both parties as tools of expediency. Something to think about: seven of the current Supreme Court justices where nominated by Republican presidents, we have had Republican domination of Washington for about ten years, that control being complete for six years, and abortion is still completely legal. Now the Party is thinking about nominating a pro-abortion guy. At some point we have to ask ourselves: Are we a bunch of suckers?
If the Republicans nominate Rudy we should not vote for them. If even a couple percent of the Republican "base" doesn't vote Republican, they will lose. While in the short term that might be bad, in the long run it will force the Republican Party to remain pro-life. What a lot of Pro-lifers do not realize is that the Republican Party, like the Democratic Party, only really believes in its own power. It, as a political institution, views abortion like it does any other issue. If the party believes that pro-lifers will vote for them regardless, and that they can pick up some "moderate" voters by nominating a pro-abortion candidate, they will do it. Pro-lifers must understand this. We must get over partisan loyalty and view both parties as tools of expediency. Something to think about: seven of the current Supreme Court justices where nominated by Republican presidents, we have had Republican domination of Washington for about ten years, that control being complete for six years, and abortion is still completely legal. Now the Party is thinking about nominating a pro-abortion guy. At some point we have to ask ourselves: Are we a bunch of suckers?
Wednesday, February 14, 2007
We are truely blessed to have such a Pope.
Papal Message for Lent 2007
"They Shall Look on Him Whom They Have Pierced"
VATICAN CITY, FEB. 13, 2007 (Zenit.org).- Here is Benedict XVI's message for Lent 2007. It was issued today by the Vatican press office. * * * Dear Brothers and Sisters! "They shall look on Him whom they have pierced" (Jn 19:37). This is the biblical theme that this year guides our Lenten reflection. Lent is a favourable time to learn to stay with Mary and John, the beloved disciple, close to Him who on the Cross, consummated for all mankind the sacrifice of His life (cf. Jn 19:25). With a more fervent participation let us direct our gaze, therefore, in this time of penance and prayer, at Christ crucified who, dying on Calvary, revealed fully for us the love of God. In the Encyclical Deus caritas est, I dwelt upon this theme of love, highlighting its two fundamental forms: agape and eros. God's love: agape and eros The term agape, which appears many times in the New Testament, indicates the self-giving love of one who looks exclusively for the good of the other. The word eros, on the other hand, denotes the love of one who desires to possess what he or she lacks and yearns for union with the beloved. The love with which God surrounds us is undoubtedly agape. Indeed, can man give to God some good that He does not already possess? All that the human creature is and has is divine gift. It is the creature then, who is in need of God in everything. But God's love is also eros. In the Old Testament, the Creator of the universe manifests toward the people whom He has chosen as His own a predilection that transcends every human motivation. The prophet Hosea expresses this divine passion with daring images such as the love of a man for an adulterous woman (cf. 3:1-3). For his part, Ezekiel, speaking of God's relationship with the people of Israel, is not afraid to use strong and passionate language (cf. 16:1-22). These biblical texts indicate that eros is part of God's very heart: the Almighty awaits the "yes" of His creatures as a young bridegroom that of his bride. Unfortunately, from its very origins, mankind, seduced by the lies of the Evil One, rejected God's love in the illusion of a self-sufficiency that is impossible (cf. Gn 3:1-7). Turning in on himself, Adam withdrew from that source of life who is God Himself, and became the first of "those who through fear of death were subject to lifelong bondage" (Heb 2:15). God, however, did not give up. On the contrary, man's "no" was the decisive impulse that moved Him to manifest His love in all of its redeeming strength. The Cross reveals the fullness of God's love It is in the mystery of the Cross that the overwhelming power of the heavenly Father's mercy is revealed in all of its fullness. In order to win back the love of His creature, He accepted to pay a very high price: the blood of His only begotten Son. Death, which for the first Adam was an extreme sign of loneliness and powerlessness, was thus transformed in the supreme act of love and freedom of the new Adam. One could very well assert, therefore, together with Saint Maximus the Confessor, that Christ "died, if one could say so, divinely, because He died freely" (Ambigua, 91, 1956). On the Cross, God's eros for us is made manifest. Eros is indeed -- as Pseudo-Dionysius expresses it -- that force "that does not allow the lover to remain in himself but moves him to become one with the beloved" (De divinis nominibus, IV, 13: PG 3, 712). Is there more "mad eros" (N. Cabasilas, Vita in Cristo, 648) than that which led the Son of God to make Himself one with us even to the point of suffering as His own the consequences of our offences? "Him whom they have pierced" Dear brothers and sisters, let us look at Christ pierced in the Cross! He is the unsurpassing revelation of God's love, a love in which eros and agape, far from being opposed, enlighten each other. On the Cross, it is God Himself who begs the love of His creature: He is thirsty for the love of every one of us. The Apostle Thomas recognized Jesus as "Lord and God" when he put his hand into the wound of His side. Not surprisingly, many of the saints found in the Heart of Jesus the deepest expression of this mystery of love. One could rightly say that the revelation of God's eros toward man is, in reality, the supreme expression of His agape. In all truth, only the love that unites the free gift of oneself with the impassioned desire for reciprocity instills a joy, which eases the heaviest of burdens. Jesus said: "When I am lifted up from the earth, I will draw all men to myself" (Jn 12:32). The response the Lord ardently desires of us is above all that we welcome His love and allow ourselves to be drawn to Him. Accepting His love, however, is not enough. We need to respond to such love and devote ourselves to communicating it to others. Christ "draws me to Himself" in order to unite Himself to me, so that I learn to love the brothers with His own love. Blood and water "They shall look on Him whom they have pierced." Let us look with trust at the pierced side of Jesus from which flow "blood and water" (Jn 19:34)! The Fathers of the Church considered these elements as symbols of the sacraments of Baptism and the Eucharist. Through the water of Baptism, thanks to the action of the Holy Spirit, we are given access to the intimacy of Trinitarian love. In the Lenten journey, memorial of our Baptism, we are exhorted to come out of ourselves in order to open ourselves, in trustful abandonment, to the merciful embrace of the Father (cf. Saint John Chrysostom, Catecheses, 3,14ff). Blood, symbol of the love of the Good Shepherd, flows into us especially in the Eucharistic mystery: "The Eucharist draws us into Jesus' act of self-oblation … we enter into the very dynamic of His self-giving" (Encyclical Deus caritas est, 13). Let us live Lent then, as a "Eucharistic" time in which, welcoming the love of Jesus, we learn to spread it around us with every word and deed. Contemplating "Him whom they have pierced" moves us in this way to open our hearts to others, recognizing the wounds inflicted upon the dignity of the human person; it moves us, in particular, to fight every form of contempt for life and human exploitation and to alleviate the tragedies of loneliness and abandonment of so many people. May Lent be for every Christian a renewed experience of God's love given to us in Christ, a love that each day we, in turn, must "regive" to our neighbour, especially to the one who suffers most and is in need. Only in this way will we be able to participate fully in the joy of Easter. May Mary, Mother of Beautiful Love, guide us in this Lenten journey, a journey of authentic conversion to the love of Christ. I wish you, dear brothers and sisters, a fruitful Lenten journey, imparting with affection to all of you, a special Apostolic Blessing. From the Vatican, 21 November 2006. BENEDICTUS PP. XVI
Papal Message for Lent 2007
"They Shall Look on Him Whom They Have Pierced"
VATICAN CITY, FEB. 13, 2007 (Zenit.org).- Here is Benedict XVI's message for Lent 2007. It was issued today by the Vatican press office. * * * Dear Brothers and Sisters! "They shall look on Him whom they have pierced" (Jn 19:37). This is the biblical theme that this year guides our Lenten reflection. Lent is a favourable time to learn to stay with Mary and John, the beloved disciple, close to Him who on the Cross, consummated for all mankind the sacrifice of His life (cf. Jn 19:25). With a more fervent participation let us direct our gaze, therefore, in this time of penance and prayer, at Christ crucified who, dying on Calvary, revealed fully for us the love of God. In the Encyclical Deus caritas est, I dwelt upon this theme of love, highlighting its two fundamental forms: agape and eros. God's love: agape and eros The term agape, which appears many times in the New Testament, indicates the self-giving love of one who looks exclusively for the good of the other. The word eros, on the other hand, denotes the love of one who desires to possess what he or she lacks and yearns for union with the beloved. The love with which God surrounds us is undoubtedly agape. Indeed, can man give to God some good that He does not already possess? All that the human creature is and has is divine gift. It is the creature then, who is in need of God in everything. But God's love is also eros. In the Old Testament, the Creator of the universe manifests toward the people whom He has chosen as His own a predilection that transcends every human motivation. The prophet Hosea expresses this divine passion with daring images such as the love of a man for an adulterous woman (cf. 3:1-3). For his part, Ezekiel, speaking of God's relationship with the people of Israel, is not afraid to use strong and passionate language (cf. 16:1-22). These biblical texts indicate that eros is part of God's very heart: the Almighty awaits the "yes" of His creatures as a young bridegroom that of his bride. Unfortunately, from its very origins, mankind, seduced by the lies of the Evil One, rejected God's love in the illusion of a self-sufficiency that is impossible (cf. Gn 3:1-7). Turning in on himself, Adam withdrew from that source of life who is God Himself, and became the first of "those who through fear of death were subject to lifelong bondage" (Heb 2:15). God, however, did not give up. On the contrary, man's "no" was the decisive impulse that moved Him to manifest His love in all of its redeeming strength. The Cross reveals the fullness of God's love It is in the mystery of the Cross that the overwhelming power of the heavenly Father's mercy is revealed in all of its fullness. In order to win back the love of His creature, He accepted to pay a very high price: the blood of His only begotten Son. Death, which for the first Adam was an extreme sign of loneliness and powerlessness, was thus transformed in the supreme act of love and freedom of the new Adam. One could very well assert, therefore, together with Saint Maximus the Confessor, that Christ "died, if one could say so, divinely, because He died freely" (Ambigua, 91, 1956). On the Cross, God's eros for us is made manifest. Eros is indeed -- as Pseudo-Dionysius expresses it -- that force "that does not allow the lover to remain in himself but moves him to become one with the beloved" (De divinis nominibus, IV, 13: PG 3, 712). Is there more "mad eros" (N. Cabasilas, Vita in Cristo, 648) than that which led the Son of God to make Himself one with us even to the point of suffering as His own the consequences of our offences? "Him whom they have pierced" Dear brothers and sisters, let us look at Christ pierced in the Cross! He is the unsurpassing revelation of God's love, a love in which eros and agape, far from being opposed, enlighten each other. On the Cross, it is God Himself who begs the love of His creature: He is thirsty for the love of every one of us. The Apostle Thomas recognized Jesus as "Lord and God" when he put his hand into the wound of His side. Not surprisingly, many of the saints found in the Heart of Jesus the deepest expression of this mystery of love. One could rightly say that the revelation of God's eros toward man is, in reality, the supreme expression of His agape. In all truth, only the love that unites the free gift of oneself with the impassioned desire for reciprocity instills a joy, which eases the heaviest of burdens. Jesus said: "When I am lifted up from the earth, I will draw all men to myself" (Jn 12:32). The response the Lord ardently desires of us is above all that we welcome His love and allow ourselves to be drawn to Him. Accepting His love, however, is not enough. We need to respond to such love and devote ourselves to communicating it to others. Christ "draws me to Himself" in order to unite Himself to me, so that I learn to love the brothers with His own love. Blood and water "They shall look on Him whom they have pierced." Let us look with trust at the pierced side of Jesus from which flow "blood and water" (Jn 19:34)! The Fathers of the Church considered these elements as symbols of the sacraments of Baptism and the Eucharist. Through the water of Baptism, thanks to the action of the Holy Spirit, we are given access to the intimacy of Trinitarian love. In the Lenten journey, memorial of our Baptism, we are exhorted to come out of ourselves in order to open ourselves, in trustful abandonment, to the merciful embrace of the Father (cf. Saint John Chrysostom, Catecheses, 3,14ff). Blood, symbol of the love of the Good Shepherd, flows into us especially in the Eucharistic mystery: "The Eucharist draws us into Jesus' act of self-oblation … we enter into the very dynamic of His self-giving" (Encyclical Deus caritas est, 13). Let us live Lent then, as a "Eucharistic" time in which, welcoming the love of Jesus, we learn to spread it around us with every word and deed. Contemplating "Him whom they have pierced" moves us in this way to open our hearts to others, recognizing the wounds inflicted upon the dignity of the human person; it moves us, in particular, to fight every form of contempt for life and human exploitation and to alleviate the tragedies of loneliness and abandonment of so many people. May Lent be for every Christian a renewed experience of God's love given to us in Christ, a love that each day we, in turn, must "regive" to our neighbour, especially to the one who suffers most and is in need. Only in this way will we be able to participate fully in the joy of Easter. May Mary, Mother of Beautiful Love, guide us in this Lenten journey, a journey of authentic conversion to the love of Christ. I wish you, dear brothers and sisters, a fruitful Lenten journey, imparting with affection to all of you, a special Apostolic Blessing. From the Vatican, 21 November 2006. BENEDICTUS PP. XVI
Thursday, February 8, 2007
A nagging question: Given the spread of the culture of Death (i.e abortion, pornography, abandonment of the family, war...) and the fertile ground that it has found in American society, is there a place for Christian patriotism? In what way must patriotism be understood in order for it to be considered a Christian virtue? In what way has the the legacy of American Catholics trying to prove their loyalty to a largely Protestant nation, and the legacy of the Cold War, affected Catholics understanding of their place in American politics?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)