Who's got the key?
(A followup to Bishop Burke's Wake Up Call [Jan 23])
How do some Catholics justify supporting a pro-abortion candidate? What is the thought process that allows people to call themselves Catholic, yet live in defiance of Catholic teaching on such issues as contraception? The difference between a cafeteria Catholic who chooses which teachings he will follow and the Protestant who self-interprets Scripture to suit his own beliefs is that the Protestant is not a hypocrite.
Whether the topic is Marian dogmas, infant Baptism, Real Presence, purgatory or whatever, nearly every apologetic discussion between Catholics and Protestants eventually turns to a question of Church authority. Does the Magesterium of the Catholic Church have the authority to speak for God? Protestants say no. But Catholics who ignore Catholic doctrine are also saying no. Expressing disagreement with Church teaching implies the belief that the Church is wrong about some things.
While we would expect Protestants to deny the authority of the Catholic Church, Catholics who defy Church authority are also protesting. They are pretending to be something they really aren't. They make a Profession of Faith on Sundays expressing belief in one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church. Their actions, however, express doubt in the authority of that Church to speak truth. They may call themselves Catholic, but they are in reality behaving as Protestants.
It is important to understand where the Church gets its authority to speak for God. And it is equally important to understand the implication of denying the inerrancy of Church-defined dogma. If one accepts the Bible as the inspired Word of God, then he can know that Jesus Christ was God, and that he established a Church. (Matthew 16: 16-19) Jesus tells us the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against his Church, and He gives Peter the 'keys to the kingdom of heaven.' He tells Peter, "Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." (NAB)
One sufficiently catechized in his faith, will understand the significance of giving the keys, a symbol of authority, to Peter. A parallel passage in Isaiah 22: 15-25 tells the story of Shebna who held the office of 'Master of the Palace'. The 'Master of the Palace' was a prime minister who ran the day-to-day operation of the kingdom. Shebna disgraced his master's house and his authority was transferred to Eliakim. Verse 22 says, "I will place the key of the House of David on his shoulder; when he opens, no one shall shut, and when he shuts, no one shall open." (NAB)
Jesus is clearly transferring authority to Peter making him prime minister, not of an earthly kingdom as Eliakim, but rather of the heavenly Kingdom. Even marginal Catholics must accept the fact that Pope John Paul II is the 264th successor to the chair of Peter and thereby possesses the authority of the keys. To bolster that authority, Jesus promised He would send the Holy Spirit to guide His Church to all truth (John 16: 12-13). The Bible also refers to the Church as the pillar and foundation of truth. (1 Tim 3:15) How presumptuous of anyone to look at two thousand years of God-granted authority and say, "I disagree."
And yet, that is precisely what many Catholics do today when they say, "The pope doesn't understand; there is nothing wrong with birth control" or, "I don't like abortion, but I support a woman's right to choose" or, "we should allow women to be priests", or "I don't need to confess these things to a priest; that's between me and God." Even if one finds a way to skew his conscience into thinking the Church is wrong, the Lord's statement about binding and loosing should dispel any feeling of safety. If further confirmation is needed, Jesus told his apostles and their successors, "Whoever listens to you, listens to me. Whoever rejects you, rejects me. And whoever rejects me rejects the one who sent me." (Luke 10: 16)
Like Protestants, cafeteria Catholics should also think about the implications of considering some Church doctrine to be in error. To reject the authority of the Church is to reject the authority of Scripture. It was bishops of the Catholic Church who determined which of the early Christian writings were inspired by God. Many claimed to be inspired, but only those accepted by the Church became the New Testament. Jesus promised to deliver truth through His Church. If the Church is capable of error in matters of faith, then erroneous writings could have also been included in Scripture. If we question the validity of the New Testament, all of Christianity begins to unravel.
We don't need to do that. Rest assured, the Bible is the inspired Word of God, but realize we are dependent on an infallible Church to know it. Like Protestantism, cafeteria Catholicism is not a viable option. It is untenable. Either we believe all Catholic doctrine or there is no reason to believe any. The Catholic Church has been given the authority to set the rules in matters of faith and moral responsibility. How sad that some Catholics become so incredulous when a priest or bishop rebukes them for acting in opposition to Church teaching. There is no room for compromise here.
Thursday, February 19, 2004
Friday, January 23, 2004
Bishop Burke's Wake Up Call
(Roe v. Wade + 31 years)
The Diocese of La Crosse Wisconsin recently created a stir with the release of a notification from Bishop Raymond L. Burke stating that the Holy Eucharist should be withheld from lawmakers who support abortion or euthanasia. I wholeheartedly applaud the stance Bishop Burke (now Archbishop Burke of St. Louis) took. No Catholic in the state of mortal sin should be receiving Holy Communion.
Unfortunately, many besides politicians receive the Eucharist in a state of mortal sin. Are politicians being singled out for punishment? No. First of all, the action taken by Bishop Burke is not a punishment. Not only is he protecting the Body of Christ from being profaned, he is also protecting the politician from compounding his sin. (1 Cor 11:27) The Eucharist should be withheld from any person in the state of mortal sin. The difference is that politicians publicly declare their sin while the sins of another may be known only to that individual. Neither should partake in the Body of Christ.
Reaction to the Bishop's decree was swift and predictable. An article by Gayda Hollnagel in the January 16, 2004 edition of the La Crosse Tribune quotes several Wisconsin lawmakers expressing their disdain. La Crosse Mayor John Medinger, described in the article as "an active Catholic", said he was shocked. Medinger was quoted as saying, "If they're going to tell Catholic politicians if they vote in a certain way, are they also going to say that Catholics have to vote for certain politicians or they can't receive the sacraments."
You are not quite getting it, John. The bishop is not telling Catholics who to vote for. He is, however, warning Catholics who NOT to vote for. It is about time Catholics realize the responsibility they have to cultivate Christian ideals over deadly evils in our society. When an action contributes to the potential propagation of evil, it becomes a serious sin. Receiving the Holy Eucharist in a state of serious sin is itself a serious sin.
"What is the role of an individual to work within the realm of his own conscience?" Medinger asks in the article. He needs to understand the responsibility of forming one's conscience in accordance with Catholic teaching if indeed he wants to call himself a Catholic. Too often, people use conscience to validate their own personal definition of right and wrong. Worse yet, some politicians know they are propagating evil, but do so because that is what the majority of their constituents want.
Many of the Democratic presidential candidates have relinquished pro-life views held earlier in their political careers in order to gain the support of abortion advocacy groups such as NARAL, Emily's List, and NOW. I cannot believe that growth in personal wisdom could lead anyone to decide killing unborn babies is okay after all. Rather, these politicians seem to be saying, "I will have a better chance of winning the election if I sell my soul to the devil." What does that say about their character?
State Sen. Julie Lassa had an interesting quote in the Tribune article. She said, "I hold Bishop Burke in high regard; however, I believe any effort to pressure legislators by threatening to deny them the sacraments is contrary to the principles of democracy." Does Senator Lassa believe the Church is bound by the principles of democracy? Bishop Burke's authority is sanctioned not in majority rule, but in Christ Himself.
Today, Americans have a distorted view of what the separation of church and state means. Our founding fathers desired to practice their religion free from government interference. The idea was to keep the government out of religion - not to keep religion out of the government. A government set apart from God is a government that will succumb to evil. Discerning right from wrong must be rooted in the righteousness of God, not the self-righteousness of man.
The Tribune article describes Medinger's concern that non-Catholic voters will be unwilling to elect Catholic candidates for fear they will listen to the church rather than their constituents. Concerns about abortion and euthanasia extend beyond Catholic boundaries to all Christians and those of other faiths. The Democratic Party, historically the choice of Catholics, now finds itself alienated from God-fearing people because of their pro-abortion platform.
People of faith cannot vote for pro-abortion candidates in good conscience. Yet, polls show that many Catholics do. Some believe there are other issues to consider besides abortion. Sadly, others may agree with the pro-choice stance. While the Church speaks out frequently on these issues, it becomes painfully obvious that some Catholics are not listening. Merely speaking out is not enough. Bishop Burke sent out a wake-up call. Hats off to him and may all other Bishops follow suit.
(Roe v. Wade + 31 years)
The Diocese of La Crosse Wisconsin recently created a stir with the release of a notification from Bishop Raymond L. Burke stating that the Holy Eucharist should be withheld from lawmakers who support abortion or euthanasia. I wholeheartedly applaud the stance Bishop Burke (now Archbishop Burke of St. Louis) took. No Catholic in the state of mortal sin should be receiving Holy Communion.
Unfortunately, many besides politicians receive the Eucharist in a state of mortal sin. Are politicians being singled out for punishment? No. First of all, the action taken by Bishop Burke is not a punishment. Not only is he protecting the Body of Christ from being profaned, he is also protecting the politician from compounding his sin. (1 Cor 11:27) The Eucharist should be withheld from any person in the state of mortal sin. The difference is that politicians publicly declare their sin while the sins of another may be known only to that individual. Neither should partake in the Body of Christ.
Reaction to the Bishop's decree was swift and predictable. An article by Gayda Hollnagel in the January 16, 2004 edition of the La Crosse Tribune quotes several Wisconsin lawmakers expressing their disdain. La Crosse Mayor John Medinger, described in the article as "an active Catholic", said he was shocked. Medinger was quoted as saying, "If they're going to tell Catholic politicians if they vote in a certain way, are they also going to say that Catholics have to vote for certain politicians or they can't receive the sacraments."
You are not quite getting it, John. The bishop is not telling Catholics who to vote for. He is, however, warning Catholics who NOT to vote for. It is about time Catholics realize the responsibility they have to cultivate Christian ideals over deadly evils in our society. When an action contributes to the potential propagation of evil, it becomes a serious sin. Receiving the Holy Eucharist in a state of serious sin is itself a serious sin.
"What is the role of an individual to work within the realm of his own conscience?" Medinger asks in the article. He needs to understand the responsibility of forming one's conscience in accordance with Catholic teaching if indeed he wants to call himself a Catholic. Too often, people use conscience to validate their own personal definition of right and wrong. Worse yet, some politicians know they are propagating evil, but do so because that is what the majority of their constituents want.
Many of the Democratic presidential candidates have relinquished pro-life views held earlier in their political careers in order to gain the support of abortion advocacy groups such as NARAL, Emily's List, and NOW. I cannot believe that growth in personal wisdom could lead anyone to decide killing unborn babies is okay after all. Rather, these politicians seem to be saying, "I will have a better chance of winning the election if I sell my soul to the devil." What does that say about their character?
State Sen. Julie Lassa had an interesting quote in the Tribune article. She said, "I hold Bishop Burke in high regard; however, I believe any effort to pressure legislators by threatening to deny them the sacraments is contrary to the principles of democracy." Does Senator Lassa believe the Church is bound by the principles of democracy? Bishop Burke's authority is sanctioned not in majority rule, but in Christ Himself.
Today, Americans have a distorted view of what the separation of church and state means. Our founding fathers desired to practice their religion free from government interference. The idea was to keep the government out of religion - not to keep religion out of the government. A government set apart from God is a government that will succumb to evil. Discerning right from wrong must be rooted in the righteousness of God, not the self-righteousness of man.
The Tribune article describes Medinger's concern that non-Catholic voters will be unwilling to elect Catholic candidates for fear they will listen to the church rather than their constituents. Concerns about abortion and euthanasia extend beyond Catholic boundaries to all Christians and those of other faiths. The Democratic Party, historically the choice of Catholics, now finds itself alienated from God-fearing people because of their pro-abortion platform.
People of faith cannot vote for pro-abortion candidates in good conscience. Yet, polls show that many Catholics do. Some believe there are other issues to consider besides abortion. Sadly, others may agree with the pro-choice stance. While the Church speaks out frequently on these issues, it becomes painfully obvious that some Catholics are not listening. Merely speaking out is not enough. Bishop Burke sent out a wake-up call. Hats off to him and may all other Bishops follow suit.
Saturday, December 27, 2003
Homily Humor - It ain't funny
It so happened that a boy was trying out for a football team. He wasn't very good and not very smart either so the coach told him he could be on the team if he could answer three questions. The first question was, "How many seconds are there in a year?" The boy thought a moment and answered, "Twelve. January 2nd, February 2nd, March 2nd, April 2nd. . .'. The coach thought he would have to give him credit for that, so he asked the second question, "How many days of the week start with the letter 'T'?" The boy said, "Two - today and tomorrow." The coach then asked him the third question, "How many d's in Yankee Doodle?" The boy answered, "A couple of thousand. De, de, de, de, de, de, de." (sung to the tune of Yankee Doodle.)
It so happened that a guy got on a bus in Chicago and it so happened that he asked the bus driver if the bus goes "to da loop." The driver says, "No, it goes beep beep."
It so happened that there was a church on the top of a high hill and there was a cemetery at the church. And it so happened they were having a funeral and as they were opening the door on the hearse, the casket fell out and starting sliding down the hill. It kept sliding down and down until it burst into the doors of a CVS drug store. The lid opened and the body sat up and said to the pharmacist, "Do you have anything to stop this coffin?"
If you were told these jokes, would you bother to repeat them to anyone other than a small child perhaps? Where did I hear these terrible jokes? All were told by our parish priest during homilies at Christmas Midnight Mass, the Feast of the Holy Family, and (gasp) on All Souls' Day respectively. I found the coffin joke on All Souls' Day especially distasteful since there were a number of families in attendance who had recently lost loved ones.
I like to laugh as much as anyone, but I find homily jokes offensive. Not only are they inappropriate, our pastor has the annoying habit of messing up the story and setting up each joke by repeatedly saying, "It so happened . . .". I am not opposed to employing humor from the ambo. It can be a very effective tool for capturing the audience and making a moral or spiritual point. We recently had a mission where the visiting priest told several very funny anecdotes about his own family, but there was a point to his story.
The congregation does not assemble to be entertained by a priest who turns the homily into a mindless lounge act, complete with a having visitors shout out where they are from (a la Bill Murray on the old SNL). Ironically, those who do come to be entertained are the ones in most need of a good homily. A good homily should be interesting, educational, thought provoking and spiritually enlightening.
Today, I received the December issue of This Rock magazine. In the editor's column, publisher Karl Keating laments about having to search for a new parish because he could no longer tolerate the way his priest celebrates the Mass. Mr. Keating says the following: "He also likes to use jokes as brackets around the liturgy. Although a gentle witticism might be appropriate in a homily, one should keep in mind that the Mass is the reenactment of Calvary, and I suspect that no one other than the Roman soldiers joked before or after that event." Amen, Karl.
It so happened that a boy was trying out for a football team. He wasn't very good and not very smart either so the coach told him he could be on the team if he could answer three questions. The first question was, "How many seconds are there in a year?" The boy thought a moment and answered, "Twelve. January 2nd, February 2nd, March 2nd, April 2nd. . .'. The coach thought he would have to give him credit for that, so he asked the second question, "How many days of the week start with the letter 'T'?" The boy said, "Two - today and tomorrow." The coach then asked him the third question, "How many d's in Yankee Doodle?" The boy answered, "A couple of thousand. De, de, de, de, de, de, de." (sung to the tune of Yankee Doodle.)
It so happened that a guy got on a bus in Chicago and it so happened that he asked the bus driver if the bus goes "to da loop." The driver says, "No, it goes beep beep."
It so happened that there was a church on the top of a high hill and there was a cemetery at the church. And it so happened they were having a funeral and as they were opening the door on the hearse, the casket fell out and starting sliding down the hill. It kept sliding down and down until it burst into the doors of a CVS drug store. The lid opened and the body sat up and said to the pharmacist, "Do you have anything to stop this coffin?"
If you were told these jokes, would you bother to repeat them to anyone other than a small child perhaps? Where did I hear these terrible jokes? All were told by our parish priest during homilies at Christmas Midnight Mass, the Feast of the Holy Family, and (gasp) on All Souls' Day respectively. I found the coffin joke on All Souls' Day especially distasteful since there were a number of families in attendance who had recently lost loved ones.
I like to laugh as much as anyone, but I find homily jokes offensive. Not only are they inappropriate, our pastor has the annoying habit of messing up the story and setting up each joke by repeatedly saying, "It so happened . . .". I am not opposed to employing humor from the ambo. It can be a very effective tool for capturing the audience and making a moral or spiritual point. We recently had a mission where the visiting priest told several very funny anecdotes about his own family, but there was a point to his story.
The congregation does not assemble to be entertained by a priest who turns the homily into a mindless lounge act, complete with a having visitors shout out where they are from (a la Bill Murray on the old SNL). Ironically, those who do come to be entertained are the ones in most need of a good homily. A good homily should be interesting, educational, thought provoking and spiritually enlightening.
Today, I received the December issue of This Rock magazine. In the editor's column, publisher Karl Keating laments about having to search for a new parish because he could no longer tolerate the way his priest celebrates the Mass. Mr. Keating says the following: "He also likes to use jokes as brackets around the liturgy. Although a gentle witticism might be appropriate in a homily, one should keep in mind that the Mass is the reenactment of Calvary, and I suspect that no one other than the Roman soldiers joked before or after that event." Amen, Karl.
Tuesday, December 09, 2003
Dad's Birthday
My Father was born December 9, 1903, one hundred years ago today. He died in 1975 and I still marvel at all the things he witnessed in his lifetime. He lived through two world wars and worked as a teller in a Chicago bank during the stock market crash of 1929. The Wright Brothers flew for the first time when Dad was barely a week old, and Americans walked on the moon six years before his death. Advancements in transportation, medicine, and technology during the twentieth century of progress are mind-boggling, and Dad lived through much of it.
He was a good father despite the fact that he was nearly 47 years old when I was born and 49 at the birth of my sister. He was 15 years older than my mother, his second wife. His first wife died of cancer in 1947, leaving him and my older brother to fend for themselves.
Dad was a Methodist, and my Mother a Catholic. They didn't discuss religion much in front of us, but occasionally Dad would let slip a little comment revealing his befuddlement with Catholic teaching. Mom's nephew was a young Catholic priest who my father would engage in very interesting theological discussion during his occasional visits. As a youngster, I didn't always understand what they were talking about, but I remember being mesmerized listening to them.
Dad remained a Protestant throughout his life. I often wonder if I could have brought him home to the Catholic Church if I knew then what I know now. No doubt such discussions would have been uncomfortable for both of us. Certain topics are much easier left untouched.
I miss him much and still awaken to very realistic dreams of him being here in the present. Perhaps he is. Happy Birthday Dad!
My Father was born December 9, 1903, one hundred years ago today. He died in 1975 and I still marvel at all the things he witnessed in his lifetime. He lived through two world wars and worked as a teller in a Chicago bank during the stock market crash of 1929. The Wright Brothers flew for the first time when Dad was barely a week old, and Americans walked on the moon six years before his death. Advancements in transportation, medicine, and technology during the twentieth century of progress are mind-boggling, and Dad lived through much of it.
He was a good father despite the fact that he was nearly 47 years old when I was born and 49 at the birth of my sister. He was 15 years older than my mother, his second wife. His first wife died of cancer in 1947, leaving him and my older brother to fend for themselves.
Dad was a Methodist, and my Mother a Catholic. They didn't discuss religion much in front of us, but occasionally Dad would let slip a little comment revealing his befuddlement with Catholic teaching. Mom's nephew was a young Catholic priest who my father would engage in very interesting theological discussion during his occasional visits. As a youngster, I didn't always understand what they were talking about, but I remember being mesmerized listening to them.
Dad remained a Protestant throughout his life. I often wonder if I could have brought him home to the Catholic Church if I knew then what I know now. No doubt such discussions would have been uncomfortable for both of us. Certain topics are much easier left untouched.
I miss him much and still awaken to very realistic dreams of him being here in the present. Perhaps he is. Happy Birthday Dad!
Thursday, November 27, 2003
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.
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.
Wednesday, October 29, 2003
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.
(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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)