Abbey-Roads2

You say you want a revolution…

Everyone likes to blame the baby-boomers for all the liberalism we have become accustomed to in the Church today.  Few realize it all started long before the boomers were even capable of expressing a revolutionary thought.  How many young people today understand that the push for liturgical reform, modernizing the liturgy, and using the vernacular was a desire experimented with before the Council?  How many people realize that it was Pius XII who called for women religious to modify their habits to adapt to the demands of modern life, such as the nuns who drove cars or worked in medicine?  (Although later, many modified themselves out of the habit entirely.)

When I was in grade school, the nuns taught us - way back then - songs such as ”Kumbaya” - and we listened to the Congolese Missa Lubaand had to sing Negro spirituals.  (Although black kids in the class were disciplined until they spoke without an “accent”.)  I think it was probably the missionary sisters who came back to the motherhouse with stories of how fervent the African Catholics were, and how much the native people enlivened the liturgy with their exuberant participation and singing, which motivated the sisters to jump on board as regards the reform of the liturgy.  When Vatican II came along, it was a dream come true for a good share of them.

I di’n't know nothin’ ’bout Civil Rights.

Then in the very late 1950’s, early 1960’s the nuns began to get deeply involved in politics - in and through the Civil Rights movement.  (Of course, we had a Catholic President then as well.)  The nuns marched alongside priests and ministers, protesting segregation and demanding the right to vote for black people.  Without doubt it was a good thing, except, in the mid-’60’s the revolutionary spirit suddenly crept into the convent, along with a strong feminist understanding of power, individualism, and independence.  Which happens to be another reason why we have the American Catholic Church we have today.

“Yes Sister, whatever you say Sister!”

So don’t put all the blame on boomers - blame the Sisters of St. Joseph of Margaret Sanger, and the other storm trooperorders who taught us.  (After all, many of them were from the same generation as my parents and your grandparents.)  Funny, what they subsequently failed to realize, their habits spoke louder than words.

(Disclaimer:  The religious women who taught us are to be highly praised for their sacrifice and dedication, no doubt about it.  Just as they ought to be commended and honored for their heroic work in the Civil Rights struggle.  This has been my personal reflection on what, in part,  may have contributed to the decline of religious life in the U.S., as well as an offering towards understanding why the American Catholic Church got to be so liberal.) 

[Update: 7/31/07 - I just found a post at Cafeteria is Closed on this subject; an article by Benedict Groeschl in First Things, discussing the theological and psychological dynamics at work in the decline of established religious communities in the U.S..] 

Of Motu Poo-poo-ers and non-Catholics.

Ray of Stella Borealis sent me a link to Fr. Debruycker’s 2 Cents column from the St. Joan of Arc bulletin.  I liked it.  I thought it contained a certain wisdom, and was rather restrained, even sage-like.  Father’s column really deals with the Vatican clarification of the Catholic Church as the true Church, rather than the recent Motu Proprio on the TLM.  (I just wanted to use my term, Motu Poo-poo!) 

So a priest and a rabbi…

“I have been discussing the Pope’s statement about the primacy of the Roman Catholic faith with a variety of different friends. I asked my old friend Rabbi Oelnik his thoughts about the subject. Now some people think Rabbi Oelnik is my invisible friend, but I can tell you Dumbledore and Gandalf would disagree.

“So rabbi what do you think?”

“I’ll tell you. I am not a Rabbi because I think I am wrong. I am a very nice fellow but I believe what the scriptures say: that the people of Israel are a people chosen. I believe there are laws set in the scriptures by which I must live my life - ways to pray, ways to dress, ways to eat, ways to act. When I disagree with these teachings - and there are exceptions in emergencies - I must be able to tell myself and my people with good reason why.”

“So, your Pope believes he is not wrong either; it’s nice to know he believes in what he stands for. He must want you to clarify your exceptions and tell him why you are still Catholic. There is nothing more dishonest than to pretend you agree when you don’t. How can you ever make true progress?” “ - Fr. DeBruycker (Read the whole article.) 

The great divide.

I think the rabbi presents a valid point of view.  However, the arguing and protests he recommends seem to me to be rather pointless.  One can’t expect to change the perennial teaching of the Catholic Church.  The discussion simply reinforces my view that the current Pope’s affirmation of Church teaching is a defining moment in Church history.  Some may see it as divisive, but Christ came for division (Luke 12: 51), and those dividing lines seem to be in the process of being delineated by those opposed to Benedict XVI.  (Although, let me be quick to say, I don’t believe Fr. DeBruycker is opposed to B16.  He is a good priest.)

It seems to me the Holy Father is simply putting on the brakes, with regard to liberal interpretations of Vatican II and Church discipline, and some heads (ideas) may just go through the windshield.

I’m coming out. 

I rarely, if ever, post anything on politics - especially mine.  I love to vote, but hate the politics, not to mention the very early campaign circus we have all been living through for the past 6 months.  If anyone reads Abbey-Roads 1, they have gotten the hint that Mr. Bush drives me nuts.  (I honestly believe he is our punishment for the sin of abortion, despite the fact that he has appointed pro-life judges.  Just as war is a punishment for sin, bad political leaders can be as well.)

Nevertheless, I’m no longer afraid to “come out of the closet” with my unhappiness in the  way this Administration has been handling the country.  More and more conservatives are indeed fed up, as Wall Street Journal contributing writer, Peggy Noonan, in her insightful editorial (along with numerous other blogs) tells us.  It’s safe to come out now - not to be a Bush hater (I’m not), but to call a spade a spade.  Here is a snippet from Ms. Noonan’s terrific critique of the “Too bad if you disagree with us.”  Bush Administration domestic and foreign policy attitude:

“What political conservatives and on-the-ground Republicans must understand at this point is that they are not breaking with the White House on immigration. They are not resisting, fighting and thereby setting down a historical marker–”At this point the break became final.” That’s not what’s happening. What conservatives and Republicans must recognize is that the White House has broken with them. What President Bush is doing, and has been doing for some time, is sundering a great political coalition. This is sad, and it holds implications not only for one political party but for the American future.”

Further on in the editorial, Ms. Noonan tells us the point wherein she began to have misgivings about this Administration:

The beginning of my own sense of separation from the Bush administration came in January 2005, when the president declared that it is now the policy of the United States to eradicate tyranny in the world, and that the survival of American liberty is dependent on the liberty of every other nation. This was at once so utopian and so aggressive that it shocked me. For others the beginning of distance might have been Katrina and the incompetence it revealed, or the depth of the mishandling and misjudgments of Iraq.”  - Peggy Noonan; read the rest here. 

He lost me with his Social Security reform package proposals and the neo-imperialist image of the United States which he sometimes arrogantly conveys to the world.

He drives me nuts. 

Just some advice - blogger to blogger - oh, and it is just my opinion:

If you use material other than your own, be it from a book, a news source, what have you, remember try and cite or link to your sources.  Especially if your entire post is nothing more than something “lifted” from another source.

If you make certain claims, try to provide your source back-up.  It is like doing a paper for school - cite.  And verify to the best of your ability.  When you are wrong - post a retraction.

If it is your opinion or you are writing from anecdotal experience - great - you are sharing something you learned.  People like that.

A blog can be a reporting tool - especially if you happen to be a news blog, such as Stella Borealis and others. Having said that, many bloggers will usually get the same information from those sources everyone else has access to.  What will make your post interesting is your view of the story you lifted.  It’s like an editorial, a letter to the editor, that makes the post interesting.  (In my case, not always.)

When you get a scoop - by all means, be the first to post it!  Or news no one else has access to - post it. 

When you write about human experience, make it your own when you can - people like that.  The life lessons from our personal experience is often helpful to others.  Just as much as the personal testimony of our faith and spiritual life can be edifying for another.

Try not to make your posts too long, people get bored.  If they happen to be long, divide the paragraphs up with headers that define what follows.  (Don Marco taught me that.)  Use pictures if you want.

Link to other sites/blogs, both on your blogroll and in the body of your post - it’s a network thing, and it also substantiates what you are writing about - especially if you got the idea from that particular site.

Not always, but occasionally acknowledge your commentators - respond to comments, blogs are not forums, but people love to be acknowledged.  It isn’t that hard to do.  (If you ignore them, they may ignore you.)

There are oodles of sites that provide news; news one doesn’t come across on television or in print - many of us go there.  Since most web savy people know the news already - give us your perspective, just don’t lift the story -  the exception would be if your blog happens to be a news blog, bulletin board, what have you.

In my opinion, blogging is kind of about that, unless it is a blog about the minutia of your daily life, a spiritual journal, a teaching blog, a spiritual blog, an author’s blog, a historical blog, etc. - which are always more interesting than reading a supplanted news story.  (AGAIN! - news blogs being the exception Stella!)

Finally, a blog can really be anything you want it to be, so go ahead, just ignore what I wrote.  It is probably just me - I don’t care for blogs that simply paste and copy news items with nothing else going on…unless they are a news source.

That’s all.

The secret of The Secret.

It’s out!  Fr. Zuhlsdorf watched Cardinal Bertone on Italian television tonight, displaying the envelopes containing the Third Secret of Fatima, showing on camera the written text, and explaining that the sheet on which Sr. Lucia had written was folded in fours, which may have misled people into believing there was just a short written text, or something to that effect.  (A few priests and religious have actually devoted their life to trying to figure out what the secret could be  - haven’t spiritual writers cautioned about undo curiosity about stuff like that?)  Whatever.  It is not the DaVinci Code here.

Get a grip!

A Cardinal of the Catholic Church is NOT going to go on public televsion and lie to the world about “The Secret”.  To imagine some cover-up by the Church, the Pope, and the Cardinal in the first place is absurd.  The people who promote these conspiracy theories and imaginings are out of line.  What they do is instill mistrust of the Holy Father and the Church.  They foment derision and division amongst the faithful.

What exactly is it that these people think is being covered up?  In short, many believe Our Lady foretold the disintegration of the Church after Vatican II.  For instance, they insist, it foretold of a Masonic riddled hierarchy, which dismantled the liturgy and opened the Church to ecumenism, preparing the world for a one world religion and the anti-Christ - hence these people believe it is this “they” want covered up.  Gosh - I hate to break it to them, but we all know and have witnessed the division and confusion in the Church - for several decades now - it hasn’t been much of a ”secret”.

Fr. Zuhlsdorf concludes his post with this comment:

“Of course what was seen on TV tonight doesn’t really resolve anything.  Still, some one bent on saying that there is more to the secret will have to explain how what Card. Bertone showed on TV was inadequate proof.” 

I say, in the end, it doesn’t really matter.  The essential elements of the message of Fatima were revealed long before 1960.  The requests of Our Lady are well known, she revealed what was necessary for the faithful which would aid in our sanctifcation and salvation.  The “Third Secret” was for the Holy Father in the first place, and up to him to disclose it or not, and John Paul II decided to reveal it.  He did!

And another thing.

This is one of the reasons why people ignore the Fatima message in the first place, because of all the nut-jobs associated with “the cult”.  Even when I was little, Blue Army people floated around in blue suits and dresses and chapel veils, looking like overly pious, scared-to-death people, certain the world was going to end the next day.  Not a few of them may yet be found in the more extreme Sede/Trad movements of today. 

That’s all. - as Miranda would say. 

Thoughts on the effects of the Council 

Sometimes, it is difficult to see the benefits derived from the Second Vatican Council.  In fact, I’d be hard pressed to cite many.  I don’t know why I’ve been thinking about the Council so much, maybe because the Motu Proprio, extending the freedom of the ancient Latin Ordo is expected ’soon’. 

At Mass this morning, we were joined by the 6th, 7th, and 8th grade students.  Each week a section of the student body assembles for school Mass.  They are so noisy, entering and leaving the Church (not to mention at the sign of peace) that I couldn’t help notice them.  Very few genuflect, much less pay attention or participate in the liturgy.

What a difference a generation or two makes

I went to Catholic grade schools, with fully habited nuns as teachers.  We entered the Church in rigid single file and in silence, with a to-the-ground genuflection towards the Blessed Sacrament on the altar - not a table.  The boys shirts were tucked in, and our ties straight.  We knelt straight, with hands folded.  We used leaflet missals to follow the Mass, and we sang Gregorian chant.  We approached communion in strict formation, returning to our place, with our heads bowed.  After Mass we remained a few minutes for our thanksgiving.  We rose at the knock of Sister’s knuckles against the back of the pew and returned to our classroom in silence.

What a difference in training today.  These Catholic school kids had to be told by the Celebrant when to stand, sit, and kneel.

Aggiornamento

How many years has it been since the closing of V-II?  Forty two years now?  The Church still seems more like a free for all than anything else.  If the Church opened itself to the world at the Council, it seems the world rushed right in.  Many Novus Ordo Masses are so people-oriented, the sacred is obliterated - of course we all know that, it has been repeated ad nauseum for decades now.  My apologies for bringing it up.

Casual corner

A couple of bloggers have posted on proper attire for Mass, which is a good reminder for folks.  Although, it seems to me that a more casual, people-oriented Mass invites casual dress.  The club atmosphere in some “Faith Communities” before and after Mass, makes this clear to me.  I’m not saying it is right, I’m just pointing out that casual is as casual does.

When Extraordinary Ministers come forth from the congregation en-masse, joining the priest in the Sanctuary, after a raucous sign of peace right before the Agnus Dei, and when people approach Communion without reverence, and suddenly - Mass concludes a few minutes later to a din of conversation and greetings, I have to question if people even know what just happened.  Do they really believe they just received the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ?  In such a casual atmosphere, do they even think about what they are wearing?  And is one’s clothing the prime importance in this scenario?

I’m convinced that if people understood where they were, and what they were doing there, and Who they were communicating with, they might just be more open to dressing appropriately.  I don’t believe many of them even know what they are doing, except maybe fulfilling an obligation to their personal concept of God - who happens to be Catholic. 

Back then

When I was younger, a woman wouldn’t be allowed in Church in a sleeveless blouse or dress - the Pastor, usher, or some nun, made sure of that.  Women’s heads were supposed to be covered as well, which got kind of ridiculous when you’d see a girl at Mass with a piece of kleenix bobby-pinned to her hair, or wearing what looked to be a doilie.  Yet that was in a time when there were disciplines in place, both in society as well as the Church.  Mass wasn’t in the round, nor was Church a community center. 

The priests were Father or Monsignor, not our golfing buddy named Jim.  Nuns were nuns, and they looked the part.  The Church was a place of silence, and decorum, leading to prayer and worship.  There were  no words to describe the Church as a “worship space” nor was there a place called a ”gathering room” - neither would we have described the interior statuary and embellishments in terms of ”worship environment” - or whatever term liturgists use today.  The Church was not an abstract place, it wasn’t a multi-functional events center - it was the House of God.

But this is now

In many people’s minds, the Council ended more or less as a wide open deal - nothing in particular was declared infallible by the event - although the Council itself is infallible.  Critics, and there are lots of them, have even stated that most of the documents were ambiguous, and obviously some took advantage of that fact.  Strides have been made to restore a sense of discipline and order in the Church, yet we have this freedom of conscience legacy that persists.  (Which is great, providing it has been properly informed.)  I am, to be sure, no expert on the subject, I’ve merely lived through the aftermath.

When you read the documents, you cannot help but be impressed by their splendor, and yet amazed at how deformed the interpretation has been.  I know John Paul II and Benedict XVI have and are doing all they can, along with those Bishops in communion with them, to implement the reform of the reform, but sometimes I wish the Council never happened.

It is difficult to see how opening up to the world and modernizing Herself has helped the Church be any more relevant.

The Couric interview on 60 Minutes.

Were they hard hitting questions?  Kinda, sorta.  If they were indeed that, I think Katie was asking the questions Hilary would have wanted her to ask.  There is a feminist agenda you know.

Aside from that, I really like the couple.  I just wish they were pro-life.

Her cancer - now terminal - may get him many votes, if not the election.  I totally understand Mrs. Edwards insistence that John continue his campaign.  One of the hallmarks of people who suffer with cancer is that life must go on.  They are interesting folk, hanging in the abyss, as it were, between life and death.  It is an unique perspective healthy people cannot conceive of.

A person affected by cancer can throw it all away, or embrace life in its fullest dimension - in other words, they can battle it.  Elizabeth believes her husband would make a good president, and doesn’t care if she is there to see it.  I admire that spunk.

A friend I once worked closely with is a cancer survivor - she wants to live - and she does.  She would do the same thing Elizabeth Edwards is doing - because she lives for others.  Both of these women are great ladies - politics aside - and sadly, the life issue has been considered politics.  So, as much as I like her, I can’t condone her “politics”.

Maybe the life issue with John Edwards son’s untimely death, and now his wife’s death sentence, will have an effect upon how he views abortion.  That would be so great.  (If only they could make the connection.)

On the other hand, I choose to die - I’m tired of battles - it’s a legitimate choice.

Detail, St. Joseph, Nativity icon.

Don Marco has a wonderful post on St. Joseph for his feast today, using an “icon” of Br. Claude Lane, a Benedictine from Mt. Angel Abbey, Oregon.  It is one of my favorite contemporary images of St. Joseph, and Br. Claude is a very fine painter. His work is deeply spiritual and moves one properly to devotion, which is the function of good religious art.  Br. Claude is a master of his craft.

Fr. Gregory, friend of Don Marco’s left a comment discussing the image Father used in the post, pointing out that it is not really an icon as it stands outside the canonical prototype for Orthodox icons.  And that is true.  However, the prototypical icon for the Orthodox Church has always been the icon I have pictured above, of St. Joseph in a “supernatural sleep”, while the Virgin Birth takes place.  Although this is a modern icon, most likely painted by a non-Orthodox, it has long been the prototype of icons depicting St. Joseph, although traditionally he would never be depicted outside of the narrative context, as he is here.

A modern Greek icon of St. Joseph - more or less a copy of Mother of God icons, as well as typical Western-style images of St. Joseph.

It was not until the late 19th and 20th centuries that St. Joseph appeared in Orthodox iconography as a Saint depicted alone, or holding the Child Jesus, unless it happened to be from one of the Eastern Rite Churches in union with Rome.  (Although I believe the Copts may have icons dating back earlier.)  Otherwise the saint would only have been pictured in festal icons, or the cyclical icons depicting the life of The Lord.  Never alone.

Iconography of the Saint in the West did not really flourish until the 16th century.  Before that time, the Saint normally only appeared with the Madonna and the Child Jesus in forms similar to the established Natvity narratives.

My point here is this, icons of St. Joseph depicting him in much the same manner as the Mother of God are a relatively recent development in an Orthodox Church not known for espousing anything modern, much less inspired by the Roman Church.  Yet I’m convinced that is what has occurred.  The depiction of St. Joseph in modern iconography developed, I venture to guess, as a result of the influence of Latin Rite Catholics.  I think his popularity was gradually assimilated into the personal piety of the faithful in the Eastern Rite.  (I’m not saying St. Joseph did not enjoy any cult or devotion before this in the East, yet popular piety surely influenced his representation in the iconography of the East, just as it developed in the art of the West.  Only it took the Orthodox awhile longer to express it.)

As for Roman Catholic, or non-Orthodox iconographers, the Orthodox do not accept that an outsider is either worthy or able to paint an icon suitable for liturgical use, much less private devotion.  Such contentions are the result of the centuries old schism which has divided the two Churches, tendensiously upheld by the Orthodox.

Icons are considered to be “written” in that they strictly accord with the canonical prototype, as well as literally represent the mystery depicted, or the scripture being illustrated.  Nevertheless, they are painted, and as such, they are paintings.  To say otherwise seems to me to be rather pretentious - especially when non-Orthodox apply the term to their own work.

Canonical icons are traditionally either encaustic paintings, that is, pigments mixed with wax, or more commonly, egg tempera paintings upon gesso covered wood.  It is the exact same technique employed by the ancient Greeks, Egyptians and Romans.  Imagine going back in time and asking a painter, “What is that you are writing?”  He was painting - and Byzantine iconographers adopted this profane, pagan style of painting.  So much could be said on this point, including much of the hieratic positioning of subjects, as well as manipulation in overall composition and symbology - all derived from pagan culture.   (Fresco, mosaic, bas-relief sculpture all can be employed in iconography, and has been, no writing involved.)

Though Anglo-modern, this composition would be more suitable for the Orthodox.   

Icons were codified by the Orthodox Councils, and have set canonical regulations detailing everything down to the colors used, as well as the pose of the personages.  Out of respect for the Orthodox Church I stopped painting icons quite awhile ago, as well as referring to my work as icons - which has liberated my art in no small way.  

While I appreciate icons, especially some inovative modern Western examples, I understand the insult to Orthodox sensibilities when non-Orthodox pretend their work is authenticly Byzantine iconography.  It subsists only in style, much as the Greco-Romano style of the Sienese School, along with Cimabue, and Giotto.  A greater insult to the Orthodox is the painting of Western saints, or other devotional images in the Byzantine style and calling the work an icon.

I think the more recent predelection for Eastern/Byzantine style iconography in the Western Church is the direct result of the iconoclast culture which developed after Vatican II, along with the absence of good representional art in Western culture at large, so officiously enamored with abstract expressionism, as well as the nihilist influence of 20th century architecture. 

Many progressivist Catholics have embraced icons for the spirituality they embody, and not a few have taken up the art form to make their own icons.  It strikes me as somewhat ironic that the more liberal minded, if not downright dissenting types, embrace such a strictly codified, disciplined style of religious painting, especially when they are not even bound by the Canons of the Orthodox Church.  That being said, they easily justify their picking and choosing which doctrinal truths, Church teachings and liturgical rubrics to observe at will in their own Church.  Go figure.