Liturgical Music

My wife and son are both parish organists. When our current pastor took over the parish, the arduous responsibility for selecting music for the Sunday Mass was delegated to our family. What's so difficult about looking through the hymnal and picking out something appropriate for the season? Well, it's not that simple.

The typical post-Vatican II Mass has new modern music intermingled with some old traditional hymns. Catholics now find themselves singing religious songs that were only heard in Protestant churches in the past. This is not necessarily bad unless the lyrics express ideas that conflict with Catholic teaching. One would think that all songs printed in a Catholic hymnal would be appropriate for a Catholic Mass, but that is not always the case. Catholics are often unaware that many of the hymns they have come to know and love, may undermine their own faith.

Probably the most common example of a hymn criticized for expressing Protestant thought is Amazing Grace. We have sung it in our church -- number 438 in our hymnal. Some conservative Catholics say Amazing Grace should never be sung in a Catholic Church. The reason is a lyrical implication that salvation is a one-time event that happened 'the hour I first believed.' One tenet of fundamental Protestantism says that once salvation is achieved, it cannot be lost. If that is what the song says, then certainly it should not be sung at a Catholic Mass.

Studying the lyric carefully, I am not sure the criticism is valid. The first verse does speak of being saved in the past tense, but so does the Bible (Rom 8:24 and Eph 2:5). Of course, the Bible also speaks of salvation as an ongoing process (1 Cor 1:8, 2 Cor 2:15 and Phil 2:12) and a future event (Rom 5:9-10, 2 Tim 2:11-13), and this supports the Catholic belief that salvation cannot be assured until death. Speaking of salvation in the past tense does not necessarily express a heretic belief, nor does it rule out future loss. In fact, the third verse says "grace has brought me safe thus far, and grace will lead me home." There we have the ongoing and future journey to salvation. Sounds very Catholic to me.

The second verse says, "How precious did that grace appear the hour I first believed." Fundamental Protestants believe one is saved at the moment he accepts Jesus as 'his personal Lord and Savior.' Is that the idea the song is expressing here? No. It simply says that God's grace appeared precious at the first hour of belief. Nothing wrong with that. The fourth verse says, "His word my hope secures." Again, this speaks of assured hope, not assured salvation.

One might argue that the referring to oneself as a "wretch" sounds a little like Luther saying we are cow dung. Yes, we are all sinners and sinning is wretched behavior. In the Catholic mindset, however, we are created in the image and likeness of God. Many Catholic hymnals offer an alternate text that omits the word "wretch".

Does this mean Amazing Grace is appropriate for the Mass? Not necessarily. A complete understanding and appreciation for what is happening during the Sacrifice of the Mass certainly brings to mind more reverent and prayerful hymns. Yet, conservative Catholics need not get overly upset if Amazing Grace occasionally finds its way into the liturgy.

Certainly, not all songs in Catholic hymnals are appropriate. An acquaintance with experience in liturgical music recently sent me her idea of what the minimum standards should be. Her recommendation includes "examination of the entire text to insure that it supports Catholic teaching without any error." I consider myself slightly above average in knowledge of Catholic teaching, but I couldn't begin to know every theological nuance that may be inferred by a certain lyric.

Catholic apologists often point to the proliferation of conflicting Protestant beliefs when self-interpretation of Scripture is the only option. Similarly, even if each Catholic Parish had its own orthodox theologian to scrutinize musical text, there would certainly be some disagreement on doctrinal implications of certain hymns. It is safe to say that most parishes would not have anyone sufficiently qualified to study each lyric and determine its compatibility with the fine points of doctrine.

It would then behoove each parish to adopt a hymnal containing only texts pre-approved by orthodox Catholic theologians. Some, such as the Adoremus Hymnal, have been assembled with doctrinal compatibility in mind. While many others may contain imprimaturs, one sometimes wonders how much scrutiny went into their approval.

In the meantime, some of us in the laity will face the task of selecting liturgical music each week from a repertoire that may contain questionable material. At the very least, those choosing music for the Mass should have a keen understanding of Catholic doctrine. Music that undermines Catholic teaching in any way should certainly be rejected. In the case where personal interpretation comes into play, one can always err on the side of caution. But almost any lyric can be construed to say something that the composer may have never intended.

In the 1960's, Peter, Paul and Mary (the folk singers -- not those from the Bible) had a hit song called Puff the Magic Dragon. Some critics interpreted the song's lyrics as describing a drug experience. I saw an interview with one of the members of the group (either Peter Yarrow or Paul Stookey) where he countered the accusation by analyzing each line of our National Anthem in a way that could also describe a drug experience. His point was to show that the meaning of the song is subject to the interpreter. Similarly, we may try to read too much theology into a simple song lyric. It is not necessary to eliminate every hymn that may be construed as sounding Protestant.

Years ago, I attended a baseball umpires' clinic. One of the instructors, an experienced umpire, said the first thing he does when umpiring home plate is to rub out the back line on the batter's box. By doing so, he eliminates all arguments about whether the batter is keeping his stance within the boundaries of the batter's box. With the line obliterated, the call is now up to the umpire's discretion, and the wise umpire will not make the call unless the violation is flagrant.

The key word is flagrant. Many calls in baseball are not made unless the violation is flagrant. Did the second baseman have his foot on the bag when turned the double play? Did the runner leave third base too soon when he tagged up on a sacrifice fly? Did he run out of the baseline? A good umpire doesn't try to split hairs on calls such as these. The same goes for police officers. A good cop will not give you a ticket for going 57 miles per hour in a 55 zone.

The liturgical musician would be wise to follow the same example when selecting songs for the Mass. If the doctrinal violation is flagrant, throw the hymn out. If one must bend the interpretation to find fault, let it go. Unlike the umpire or police officer, you can always seek another opinion from a priest or someone more knowledgeable. If more than one member of the parish expresses a reservation about a certain song, it is probably wise to eliminate it rather than cause discomfort and distraction for them during the Mass. Selecting liturgical music is an important task and should not be taken lightly. It can enhance the liturgy or it can detract from it. Much thought needs to go into the process.

As for Amazing Grace, I would personally avoid its use at Mass, but not so much due to any flagrant incompatibility with Catholic teaching. Rather, there are more appropriate liturgical hymns and sacred music to sing in praise of the amazing miracle taking place on the altar. I am also sensitive to those who do feel the lyrics favor a Protestant belief. A good rule of thumb is to avoid anything that could create a distraction to even a few worshipers. And, study the documents of Vatican II, especially Chapter VI of Sacrosanctum Concilium. You may be surprised what it really says.

The Liturgical Two-step
(Take one Step Forward and Two Steps Back)

Living in a liberal diocese with a liberal Bishop, one lives in constant fear of losing the few precious remnants of reverence in our liturgies. The diocesan newspaper reflects the liberal tendencies of the local clergy, so finding an article critical of liturgical abuse is a rare and pleasant surprise.

The October 26, 2002 edition of the Northwest Indiana Catholic printed a Catholic News Service (CNS) article about a speech given in San Antonio by Cardinal Francis Arinze (Prefect of the Vatican Congregation of Divine Worship and the Sacraments) in which he criticized unauthorized liturgical innovations. He addressed several of my own personal concerns about certain changes desecrating many American Catholic Churches.

One of the current fads is to rearrange the seating, bringing the altar out into the main body of the church with the pews surrounding. Cardinal Arinze is quoted as follows: "If a church is built and the seats are arranged as in an amphitheater or as in a banquet, the undeclared emphasis may be horizontal attention to one another, rather than vertical attention to God. . . . We come to Mass primarily to adore God, not to affirm one another, although this is not excluded."

Amen, Amen. So many beautiful churches have been awkwardly cobbled into an amphitheater seating arrangement in order to project some contrived sense of community. I would go one step farther than Cardinal Arinze and say this structural metamorphosis is a direct result of misplacing our vertical focus on the physical presence of Christ Himself on the altar.

Cardinal Arinze goes on to say that liturgical renewal does not mean knocking down the altar rails or positioning the altar in the middle of the sitting area of the people. "The Church has never said any such thing." The Cardinal added, "And the altar of the Blessed Sacrament should be outstanding for its beauty and honored prominence." How many churches make worshippers hunt for the tabernacle? Again, the physical presence of Christ is no longer front and center.

As I read this article, I thought how refreshing to see a high ranking Cardinal speak out in agreement with those of us who are discouraged by what is happening to our beautiful liturgies in our formerly beautiful churches and cathedrals. But, as if to let us know that the old conservative Cardinal won't rain on our liberal parade, the newspaper printed another CNS article on the very same page under the headline, "Pope's liturgist defends dance at Mass."

The article is about Archbishop Piero Marini, Pope John Paul II's "chief liturgist", defending the use of dance in papal Masses abroad and at the Vatican. Archbishop Marini has apparently been criticized by church officials because some papal liturgies are "too outlandish". According to the article, an October 5th beatification Mass in St. Peter's Square featured African dance at the offertory and Indian dance at the consecration.

Archbishop Marini defended the liturgical dance by saying, "To introduce dance at a parish Mass in Italy would be pointless. But the celebration was a missionary celebration, for the beatification of three people who evangelized Africa and Asia." The article continues to quote the Archbishop as saying, "Papal celebrations have a markedly universal character and therefore need the adaptation and inculturation foreseen by the Second Vatican Council."

Being the universal church encompassing all cultures, certain allowances probably need to be made in terms of the permitted manners of self-expression. That does not mean that dancing is a proper form of worship in all societies. In our culture, dancing is often associated with sensuality. A local Protestant church has a liturgical dance troop that performs regularly at various community events. While the dance may be very beautiful, it is difficult to think about God while watching those young women in their slinky white gowns. That is one reason liturgical dance is not permitted in our Catholic churches.

Yet, many of our priests and bishops will take Archbishop Marini's words as validation for allowing certain forms of dance at liturgical celebrations including the Mass. If you think not, turn a few pages in the same diocesan newspaper to find the following announcement: "St. Maria Goretti Parish in Dyer is hosting a Polka Mass, Sunday, Nov. 9, 10:30 a.m."

If the need for "adaptation and inculturation foreseen by the Second Vatican Council" includes celebrating Polka Masses, then why not have Hip-Hop Masses, Can-Can Masses, or Disco Masses. After all, we want to show our multicultural diversity as the universal church. How about Irish jig Masses, Russian Sabre Dance Masses, or American Line Dance Masses. Lord, have mercy on us.

Yes, the Mass is celebrated. To celebrate means to solemnize, not to turn into a dance party. Just as some Americans now demean Memorial Day by celebrating with cookouts, picnics and parties, some Catholics demean the Memorial re-presentation of Christ's one Sacrifice on Calvary by introducing liturgical diversions. The time has come to solemnly turn our attention away from the frivolous spectacle and gaze in awe upon the miracle taking place before our very eyes.

What's Up Doc?

There is an old joke about the guy whose doctor tells him he needs an operation and it would cost several thousand dollars. The patient says he has no insurance and cannot afford the operation, and asks the doctor if there is an alternative. The doctor says, "Well, for fifty bucks, I can touch up the x-rays."

I was reminded of that story after hearing of an acquaintance I'll call Ron who had been feeling a nagging pain deep inside. It came and went periodically, but persisted for quite some time. He had no family doctor and thought maybe it was time to find one who could get him back on the path to good health. Ron picked up the phone book and searched the yellow pages for physicians. He found one not far away, and made an appointment for an examination.

The doctor put him through a battery of tests and made a diagnosis. "You have a number of problems," he told Ron. "You are overweight, you have heart disease and are borderline diabetic. You need an angioplasty, and possibly surgery to open three arteries. Afterwards, I'll put you on a strict diet and exercise regimen.'

That really wasn't what Ron wanted to hear, so he decided to get a second opinion. He went back to the phone listing and called another doctor. After another series of tests, the second doctor told Ron he had signs of heart disease, but surgery would not be necessary. The pain was the result of gallstones, and he told Ron that the gall bladder should be removed. He prescribed medication and put Ron on a low-fat diet.

Still wishing to avoid surgery if possible, he went to the phone book and selected a third doctor who told him his pain is caused by an ulcer. He was told to take an antacid and refrain from spicy foods. There was no mention of his heart disease or diabetes by the third doctor.

A fourth doctor told Ron his ailments were typical for someone his age. There was nothing seriously wrong. The doctor prescribed Tylenol for his pain. Feeling more comfortable with this treatment, Ron decided to follow the advice of this doctor. No surgery, no diets, no mention of the need to exercise, Ron felt as though a burden had been lifted. He chose the fourth doctor to be his physician.

Which doctor should Ron have chosen to be his family physician? What criteria should he consider in making his decision? Obviously, each doctor had a different opinion on which path Ron should follow. His physical wellbeing could hang in the balance. If the fourth doctor underestimated or misinterpreted the test results, Ron's life could be in jeopardy. Only time will tell.

Recently, a couple new to this area told me they had been "church hopping". They had been sampling several different churches looking for one to join. One church had a three-hour long Sunday service, with lots of singing and dancing. Too long and a little strange, they thought. Another had a preacher they didn't care for, but the people were friendly. Still another didn't allow dancing or alcohol consumption. Thank God, they didn't find one they liked before stumbling upon our Catholic Church. Apparently, neither our priest nor anyone in the congregation has done anything to drive them off yet.

Like Ron's method for choosing a physician, this method for choosing a church is misguided and potentially dangerous. While choosing the wrong doctor could jeopardize one's physical health, choosing the wrong church could jeopardize one's spiritual health. While doctors may disagree on a diagnosis, different churches often disagree on doctrine. The choice of a church should not be based upon which provides the most comfortable path to follow.

If one doctor provides a diagnosis which conflicts with the diagnosis of another doctor, one or both of them is wrong. The choice of a doctor should be based upon which doctor is most likely making the correct diagnosis, not which diagnosis we would prefer to hear. As general practitioners, are these doctors even qualified to treat serious diseases? Which one is the authority on heart disease, diabetes, or internal medicine?

Similarly, the choice of a church should be based upon which church is preaching the truth, not which church tells us what we want to hear. When doctrines are in conflict, somebody is wrong. Who is the authority on matters of faith and morals? We know that Christ established a church and gave it authority. (Matthew 16:18) But, how do we know which church that is today?

Church Doctrine should not change. Most Christian denominations believe that God�s revelation ended about 100 AD. Therefore, what was accepted by those early Christians as truth then, should remain true today. If a denomination teaches doctrine which contradicts the commonly held beliefs of the earliest Christians, then someone other than Christ has altered the doctrine. The easiest way to learn what the Catholic Church teaches today is to pick up a copy of the Catechism. The essentials of the faith are laid out in detail with plenty of footnotes and references. But how does one know what the earliest Christians believed?

One way is to go back to the Doctors -- not physicians this time, but the Doctors of the Church. Ecclesiastical writers, such as Augustine, Jerome, Athanasius, and Thomas Aquinas were instrumental in determining the doctrine of the Church. More than thirty great thinkers have been declared Doctors of the Church, and their writings are still available to shed light on the Church's rich history.

Early Christian writers, known as the Church Fathers provide tremendous insight to the earliest years of the Church. Some of them date back to the apostles themselves. While their writings are not authoritative, the Church Fathers serve as witnesses to life in the early Church, revealing beliefs and practices that still exist today only in the Catholic Church.

Church Fathers such as Clement I, Hermas, and Ignatius of Antioch write about the authority of the church in the first century. Excerpts can be viewed at the Catholic Answers website. One cannot read the writings of Cyprian of Carthage in 251 AD without seeing the same Catholic Church we know today.

Picking a church based upon the music, decor, length of services, or oratorical skills of the pastor, is superficial. It's like choosing a spouse based strictly on looks. It's like choosing a doctor based on cheapest fees or bedside manner. Rather, we should choose the church that provides us with the best chance for salvation, regardless of the cost or effort involved.

We should be in the original Church that Jesus Christ established for us, not a facsimile. Cardinal John Henry Newman, a convert from Anglicanism, said, "To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant." To be truly Christian is to immerse oneself in that history and seek the truth.

Sharing the Faith

Catholics seldom share their faith. We seem almost embarrassed to talk about it. I worry that most Catholics are so ignorant of their faith, that they are afraid to speak up for fear that others will make them look foolish. It is our responsibility to spread the gospel and evangelize. I believe most every sincere Christian who honestly seeks the truth would love to be Catholic if they understood what it was. All we need to do is wipe away the misconceptions and explain the truth. I have heard many converts claim they would have been Catholic a long time ago, but they never met a Catholic who could explain and defend their faith.

Every day, I see friends, neighbors and acquaintances who are active in other Christian communities. They are well educated, have a sincere love for Christ, yet they do not share in the fullness of the faith as we Catholics do. I know it sounds presumptuous to say we Catholics have the fullness of the faith and others do not, but one can reasonably reach that conclusion after delving into the rich history of the Church. I would love to share this faith with others, but I don't know how to go about doing it. You see, I am very shy by nature. I have a difficult time bringing up the topic of religion to an acquaintance. Given the opportunity, what would I say to them if I had just one chance to convince them to become Catholic?

The most difficult thing about this process is where to begin. I can't just knock on my neighbor's door and say, "After all these years of discussing the weather over the backyard fence, I would now like to share my Catholic faith with you." Why not, you ask? I just can't seem to make myself do that. Sure, there could be souls at stake, but I am weak. I have been taught to be humble, to be respectful of others and their ideas. I have been taught that religion is a personal thing. I don't want to do anything that would be offensive or upsetting to others. I don't want anyone to think I am presumptuous, even if I am!

All of these insecurities can render me ineffective. I have taken the position that I must lead my life in such a way that will earn the respect of my neighbors, hoping that they will see something in me that they will seek out. Trouble is, nobody knows that my lifestyle is strongly influenced by my Catholic faith. I justify my silence by telling myself that this is the personality God has given me. If God wanted me to preach, he would have made me more outgoing. He would have made me more eloquent. Truth is, I am much better at putting my thoughts on paper than I am at expressing them in conversation. For that reason I have elected to write these little articles in my spare time, hoping at some point, to compile them into something that will make sense to someone.

Not long ago, a former resident of our small town wrote a mystery novel set in our community. Although the storyline was mostly fictional, it contained many familiar characters to those of us who grew up here. Surnames were changed, but little else, and often the portrayals were not flattering. The book was very poorly written, full of inconsistencies and logistical errors. Yet, somehow this man managed to get his work published, perhaps on the strength of his reputation in another field. When word of this book spread around town, everyone wanted to read it. This continued despite the fact that most everyone who did read it thought it was terrible! Maybe someday, these things I write about my Catholic faith will be read by others in this community. Maybe someone will be curious to see what a local boy wrote about, and a seed will be planted. I hope the reaction to my writing is more favorable, however.

I have successfully shared my faith with others. This usually happens when the other party or some unusual circumstance leads into the conversation. The strangest example occurred at my place of work several years ago where a roll of pink tape lead to an ongoing email discussion with a professor of theology at the Moody Bible Institute. A contractor I'll call Dave, was doing an installation which required the use of Teflon pipe tape. (Teflon tape is used to wrap pipe threads before assembly.) All the Teflon tape I had ever previously seen was white in color. Dave had pink tape.

The course of conversation took some bizarre turns. All of this occurred about the time that Evangelist Jerry Falwell was speaking out against a children�s television show called the Teletubbies. One of the Teletubby characters (I think his name was 'Tinky Winky') was pink and carried a purse. Falwell criticized the presence of this character on a children's show because the character appeared to be gay, at least in the eyes of Jerry Falwell. I noted the unusual color of the Teflon tape and wisecracked that Jerry Falwell might jump to a conclusion about the Dave's sexual preference based upon the unusual color of his tape.

Dave happened to be an Evangelical Protestant and a follower of Jerry Falwell. Dave asked me what I thought of Falwell. Not knowing where Dave stood, I tried to indicate respectfully that I thought Falwell's remarks about the Teletubbies might be a little extreme. In the course of the conversation about Jerry Falwell, I mentioned that I was Catholic. Dave perked up as though he was well prepared to challenge Catholics.

He immediately asked me why so much of what the Catholic Church teaches is not in the Bible. Caught somewhat off guard, I replied that while not every thing the Church teaches is explicitly in the Bible, nothing the Church teaches is in conflict with the Bible. I explained that the Church predates the Bible as we know it and that it was the Bishops of the Catholic Church who determined which of the early Christian writings were inspired by God and therefore, included in the Bible. Dave wasn't buying that, so I asked him for some specific things he believed the Catholic Church taught that were not biblical.

We discussed several common Protestant objections to Catholic theology, including Mary's perpetual virginity and the reference to Jesus' "brothers" in the Bible. I explained how the original Greek word translated to brothers in English, could include extended family such as step-brothers or cousins, and in fact, there was no word specifically for cousin. We briefly discussed the necessity of Baptism and its cleansing of the soul. Dave was unwavering. With our time together growing short, I asked him to give me an opportunity to write down several of his most pressing questions about the Catholic Church, and I would respond to him in detail by a Fax. He left me with two: (1) Why do we pray to Mary instead of going directly to God and (2) Where in the Bible does it say to pray for the dead?

I could tell Dave had been taught how to evangelize Catholics. These are two common objections to the Catholic Faith that are often raised to make unprepared Catholics squirm. I wanted to answer his questions thoroughly and respectfully. Opportunities to share our Catholic Faith do not come often. This could be a life altering experience for Dave and his family -- literally a matter of (eternal) life and death!

Apologetic resources are plentiful today in books and on the Internet. Apostolates such as Catholic Answers, St. Joseph Communications, and EWTN have an abundance of information available to anyone seeking Catholic truth. I consulted both of these and others in preparing my answer for Dave. (I won't post my reply to Dave here but anyone can go to www.catholic.com and find answers to these questions.)

In the weeks that followed, Dave sent me a couple of essays by contemporary Protestant authors and asked me to respond. I did and faxed them back to Dave. I found out later that Dave had a friend with whom he was sharing my answers. This friend was a professor of theology at the Moody Bible Institute. Eventually, Dave put me in touch with the professor and we began to correspond directly by email.

Our dialogue went on for several months. We touched on many aspects of Catholic theology. I used the Bible and simple logic to back the Catholic position. I saved copies of our correspondence and hope to share it with others someday. As I look back on it now, there are things I would say differently, but overall, I think I held my own. I shared several audio tapes with him, including some by Dr. Kenneth Howell, a convert to the Catholic Faith who became an author and speaker for St. Joseph Communications. After the professor wrote a critique of one of Dr. Howell's tapes, I requested his permission to share the critique with Dr. Howell, with whom I had also corresponded. I don't know whether the two of them had a subsequent conversation. At about the same time, the professor ended our correspondence saying he did not have the time to continue our talks.


All of this happened after an 'off the cuff' comment about pink tape. It didn't require me to take any special initiative. I didn't have to knock on anyone's door, or steer the conversation. If we prepare adequately and make ourselves available, the Holy Spirit will take care of the rest.

I have always wondered why the professor suddenly terminated our conversation. Perhaps he thought I was a lost cause. Maybe he got scared. Maybe he really didn't have time for me. I don't know. The last time I spoke with Dave, I asked him how his friend was doing. He said he hadn't seen him in quite a while. In my final message, I asked him to pray for me and I offered to pray for him. I will continue to do so, and I hope he remembers me also.

How's your reception?

Remember the Zenith handcrafted television? In the 1960's, the Zenith television was considered one of the 'top of the line' models. Printed circuit boards were just beginning to appear in less expensive, often Japanese-made models that were less reliable and difficult to repair. (My, how times have changed!) Zenith commercials showed a craftsman soldering each component by hand. "The quality goes in before the name goes on" was their slogan.

In those days, television sets varied widely in price and reliability. A co-worker of mine liked to tell a story about an entrepreneur who wanted to manufacture a cheap television set, so he bought an expensive television and began clipping out components, one at a time. When the picture went out, he replaced the last component removed, and sold the set as a cheap TV. My friend used that story as an analogy to explain a modern industrial management philosophy where non-essentials are eliminated to save money.

I work for an electric utility that has adopted that philosophy. Management took a first rate company and began removing components, one at a time. Workers were eliminated, budgets cut, inventories reduced, and maintenance curtailed. When production failed, they put back just enough to restore it.

Short term savings are usually lost in long term costs. Poorly maintained equipment must be replaced more often, meaning that immediate savings in Operations and Maintenance are offset by expensive capital improvements. Intangible costs in terms of diminished worker productivity and morale are difficult to measure.

We sometimes manage our spiritual lives the same way. We want to get by with as little upkeep as possible. We start removing components to minimize our cost in time and sacrifice. The result is an inferior product with a higher ultimate cost. Removing elements of our faith is more complicated, however. Unlike the television, we don't always know when we are no longer seeing a clear picture.

I don't know who invented the first inexpensive television, but perhaps we can trace the modern-day cropping of the faith to Martin Luther. When it became too difficult for him to accept the authority of the church, he simply removed that component from his faith. Once he deemed it no longer necessary to listen to the Magesterial authority, he could also reject oral teaching or what we now call Apostolic Tradition. Luther removed components until all that remained was the Bible alone. He may have still seen a picture, but it was now subject to the eye of the beholder.

Instead of working within the church to fix the problems and maintain the overall 'quality', Luther chose to scrap the original church and establish a less cumbersome version. His short term solution, however, opened the door for long term deterioration. The book alone is not enough. Just because a student has a text book doesn't mean the teacher can be removed from the classroom. Without the authoritative teacher, the book is left to self-interpretation by the student. The student is then free to spin the interpretation to his own liking, in effect, removing obstacles considered too costly to his spiritual lifestyle. As different interpreters interpret themselves into different beliefs, one must conclude that somebody is no longer seeing the true picture.

Once Luther removed the obstacle of Magesterial authority, he was free to remove other doctrinal components as well. He declared works no longer affective to our justification. Others followed Luther with their own modifications such as removing the necessity of Baptism and confession of sins to a priest. They pulled the ban on divorce and artificial birth control. Some removed the ban on same-sex marriages. They denied the presence of the Body and Blood of Christ in the Sacrifice of the Mass. These were essential components of our faith. Without them, Christians are left with a snowy unreliable picture.

Even those still in the Catholic Church often seem intent on removing what they consider to be obstacles to their immediate gratification in this life. It's like having the expensive television set without taking advantage of the special features. Our set comes with seven grace-filling sacraments that often go under-utilized. The Blessed Sacrament is the most powerful gift available to us, but we often fail to appreciate its value. Many Catholics rarely, if ever, take advantage of confession.

I've heard ex-catholics say they didn't get anything out of the Mass. If a person doesn't get anything out of the Mass, that person is not tuned-in to what is happening. It is not enough to merely put in an appearance each week. Too often, we remove ourselves from active participation by allowing our attention to wander. We must be attentive at Mass, listening intently to the gospel, and focused on what is happening on the altar. Those of us with satellite dishes know that they need to be pointed directly toward the source of the signal or they will not work. The same is true in our spiritual lives. If we are not pointed toward God, we will not receive His grace.

What is the short-term benefit of removing components from our faith? By doing so, we can effectively disable our consciences. This allows us to participate in more enjoyable and perhaps sinful activities instead of prayer, attending Mass, and receiving the Sacraments. Removing the teaching authority of the church enables us to pick and choose what we wish to acknowledge in our lives according to our own liking. We are relieved from our responsibilities to God. We no longer have to tell a priest about watching that adult movie or missing Mass on Sunday. We can eliminate all but the minimum requirements and we can set those requirements ourselves. We can still call ourselves catholic with minimal investment.

What is the long-term cost of choosing the cheapest route? Our view of Christ and His plan for us becomes distorted by sin and a lack of grace. We jeopardize not only our own spiritual well-being, but that of others around us, and especially our descendants. We send them a message that it's okay to settle for less, to lower expectations, and to take the easy way out. We compromise our own integrity, diminish our self respect, and risk damage to our character. We cloud the truth and propagate relativism. Above all, we risk losing our salvation. No cost-cutting measures are worth that.

When it comes to observing our faith, quality is of utmost importance. We need to strive for a high definition, true color, clear picture of where we are headed and what we need to do to get there. Our Lord transmits ample grace through the Sacraments and His Church. We to have our antennae pointed, our receivers on, and our tuners set. We cannot afford to be hampered by poor reception.

The Dissent of the Holy Spirit?

Our parish priest often includes a number of pre-printed inserts in our weekly church bulletin. Some are publications from various apostolates to which our pastor apparently subscribes. Among them are Liturgy Training Publications, Ligouri Publications, and St. Anthony Messenger.

I know little about the first two, but those of us attune to the influx of liberalism into the church raise our alert status to orange when we receive chatter from groups such as St. Anthony Messenger. While much of it is orthodox, some of it is not. I believe it was Pentecost Sunday when our bulletin included a two year old Catholic Update tract titled How the Spirit Guides the Church by William H. Shannon.

The article contrasts the Gospels of Matthew and John, calling Matthew the "most Church-oriented" and John the "least". The keen observer will note the use of superlative modifiers in a comparative form, providing an early clue that the author may be preparing to overstate his case. While acknowledging a clearly defined Church hierarchy in Matthew's gospel, the author would like us to believe John does not view the church this way. Rather, John sees the church as a community of equal individuals led by the Holy Spirit. Most of Shannon's evidence seems to be based, not upon what John says in his gospel, but rather on what he did not say. John simply does not mention the hierarchy.

Proof by omission is a tactic sometimes used when evidence to support a theory is fleeting. In apologetic circles, one occasionally hears the argument that a certain church father did not hold a particular belief because he did not write about it. That is very weak evidence. Writers do not necessarily make reference to ideas that are already commonly acknowledged within their audience.

In this case, I get the feeling that Shannon wants to be free to disagree with the church hierarchy and is looking for a way to validate his dissention. To his credit, he does appear to be uncomfortable with dissention, stating that it "ought to be a very rare experience in the life of the Church." But then he says the following: "Dissent would be rare if we had a clearer understanding of the attitude which the magisterium in the Church ought to take toward that other 'Stirring of the Spirit' which also operates in the Church." The wording of the statement is confusing. Is he blaming dissent on the dissenter's lack of understanding of the magesterium or on the magesterium's faulty attitude? The tone of the article indicates the latter.

The other "Stirring of the Spirit" to which Shannon refers is his perception of the Holy Spirit speaking to individuals who are outside the hierarchy, and he tries to use Johannine ecclesiology to legitimize the credibility of these so-called 'stirrings'. He acknowledges that allowing a "double stirring" of the Spirit will inevitably result in "not only untidiness, but also disparate and opposed tendencies and trends."

In other words, Shannon appears to be saying that if the magesterium would allow consideration of dissenting opinions stirred by the Holy Spirit in individuals outside of the magesterium, those opinions would no longer necessarily be dissenting. If it comes from the Holy Spirit, it cannot be considered 'dissent'.

Does he really believe the Holy Spirit would 'stir' one opinion within the hierarchy and a dissenting opinion within other "holy people" as he calls them? That makes no sense. The Holy Spirit would not deliberately create conflict within the Church. If two 'Stirrings of the Spirit' are in disagreement, at least one of them did not come from the Holy Spirit.

Is this to say the Holy Spirit does not stir in the hearts and minds of those outside the magisterium? Not at all, but not every 'stirring' comes from the Holy Spirit. Stirrings can have other points of origin including the evil one. I contend the Holy Spirit will not stir dissention in the Church, and such stirrings come from other sources. Determining the origin requires cautious discernment. Paul warned the members of the church in Galatia that "even if an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel other than the one that we preached to you, let that one be accursed!" Gal 1:8 (NAB)

How does Shannon explain the conflicting stirrings of the Holy Spirit? One way is by citing theologian Karl Rahner's work called, The Spirit in the Church. According to Shannon, Rahner says love is the only thing that can give unity to the Church at the human level because it "allows another to be different, even when it does not understand him [or her]." This idea would seem to coincide with a current trend to expand cultural diversity tolerance to include diversity of belief tolerance within the Church. (See More on Diversity, February 22, 2003.)

According to Shannon, "Rahner suggests that a glance into history will make clear to us that there has never been a theological trend in the Church that has been wholly and solely right and has triumphed over all the others." Quoting Rahner, he says, "One alone has always been completely right, the one Lord who, one in himself, has willed the many opposing tendencies in the Church." (my emphasis added)

Our Lord has willed opposition? Really? Based upon that belief, Shannon then comfortably makes the following statement: "Realizing this frees one from anxiety and from the need always to be right." (again, my emphasis added) So, there you have it. If one's personal belief occasionally opposes the teaching of the magesterium, it's okay because those within the hierarchy are not always right and the Spirit stirs within the rest of us too.

Shannon gives just enough assent to the magesterium to make his ideas seem like orthodox Catholicism to the casual observer, but the underlying message is subversive. The reluctant cafeteria catholic will find just enough comfort in Shannon's message to ease his anxiety and provide some validation for his selectivity of belief.

Who are these dissenting writers, and how does their literature get into our Sunday bulletins? According to information printed on the tract, Shannon, "a freelance writer, is professor emeritus at Nazareth University in Rochester, New York. He is a priest of the Diocese of Rochester and founder of the International Thomas Merton Society." He is obviously influenced by Rahner, a German Jesuit theologian who lived from 1904 to 1984. Shannon cites the writing of Rahner in another tract titled, Eucharist: Understanding Christ's Body.

Here, Shannon makes the following statement: "Jesus calls us to eat his flesh and drink his blood. We must avoid an overly literalistic understanding of these words. We do not literally eat flesh or drink blood." In the next paragraph, still referring to the Eucharist, he says, "Our liturgies, therefore, must not be seen as isolated interventions of grace into our otherwise profane and graceless lives. Rather these acts of worship are symbolic expressions of what theologian Karl Rahner called 'the liturgy of the world.'..." This undermining of the Real Presence is heretical.

Rahner did not believe in transubstantiation, a key element of Catholic dogma. Rather, he devised his own theory of what happens at the consecration, which can be called transfinalization or transignification. Father Regis Scanlon addressed this topic in great detail in an article called Is Christ Really Among Us Today? which appeared in the October 1995 issue of The Homiletic & Pastoral Review.

Father Scanlon concludes that Rahner denied at least two infallible teachings (dogmas) of the Church, one being the Council of Trent's dogmatic teaching of transubstantiation, and the other being the First Vatican Council's dogmatic teaching, which states that the "understanding of its sacred dogmas must be perpetually retained." The fact that William H. Shannon's work relies heavily on Rahner should serve as a warning to anyone expecting orthodox Catholicism.

Shannon's tract on the Spirit also acknowledges Scripture scholar Father Raymond E. Brown for his "insights". Brown is another controversial figure who, according to the late Lawrence Cardinal Shehan, pioneered "a new Catholic theology founded on modern exegesis" that cast doubt on numerous articles of the Catholic faith. (See Traditional Catholic Scholars Long Opposed Fr. Brown's Theories, an article by Henry V. King, published by The Wanderer Printing Company, September 10 1998.) Incidentally, King's article also includes an interesting rebuttal for "proof by omission", a device Shannon may have learned from Brown.

Despite all of this, Shannon's tract displays an imprimatur by Carl K. Moeddel, V.G. and Auxiliary Bishop, Archdiocese of Cincinnati, April 17, 2001. How can this be? Perhaps Father Scanlon can shed some light. Regarding Rahner's beliefs on the Eucharist, Scanlon makes the following frightening statement:

"This so-called new theology of the Real Presence was published in English in 1966 and it has been taught in seminaries and universities of the United States for the past quarter of a century. Because seminarians and students often learn and believe what they are taught, no one should be surprised if 70% of our faithful today do not know or believe in the Church's (Trent's) teaching on the Real Presence." If this is true, we should also not be surprised that dissenters' publications get bishops' imprimaturs and that priests distribute them in the Sunday bulletin.