Posts

Posted on

A Lover of the Traditional Latin Mass Reflects on the Virtues of the Newer Vernacular Mass

As a priest I have been privileged to walk in the “wide Church.” That is to say, I have been able for all 21 years of my priesthood to say the Traditional Latin Mass while at the same time celebrating the newer, Ordinary Form of the Mass in some very dynamic parishes.

I have always loved both forms of the Roman liturgy and this sometimes gets me in trouble since there are dynamics within the Church where, at times, people on both sides want me to choose sides. I have no problem that people have their preferences, but as a priest I think I am required to serve a very diverse Church. I thank God too for the gift to be able to do this and to really love the current diversity. I realize too that diversity has its limits and, thus, I stick to the rubrics in both forms of the Mass: “Say the black, do the red!”

I have discussed in the past why I like the Traditional Mass and the video at the bottom of this post is a PBS interview where I speak of my love for it. I would like to take a moment however and also say what I like about the newer Ordinary Form of the Mass and also my acceptance of the fact that the old Mass did have need for some attention.

1. Rediscovering the value of subordinate roles and ministries in the Mass – There was a tendency in the Traditional Latin Mass for the action of subordinate ministers such as the deacon, subdeacon, choirs and cantors, to be non-effectual. In other words, what they did, didn’t really count. The schola (or choir) might sing the introit, the Kyrie and Gloria, but what they did still had to be recited by the priest quietly as well. In effect, their singing didn’t really count. It might sound pretty and all but it was really only what the priest recited that mattered. The last version of the Traditional Mass in 1962 had begun to remedy this. Thus the priest was no longer required to read the Scripture readings quietly if the Deacon and Subdeacon were chanting them. It was OK for him to listen to what they were chanting. But the schola’s chant still had to be re-read by the priest to “count.” The newer, Ordinary Form of the Mass has restored the subordinate ministries to their own proper function. Hence, if the readings are read by a lector or deacon the priest does not have to re-read them. If the choir sings the communion verse or song, this suffices and it is not required that the priest re-read it. I like this about the new Mass.

2.  I love the cycle of readings in the newer Mass. It is rich in its sampling of Scripture. The three year rotating cycle means that most of the New Testament is read every three years along with a rich sampling of the Old Testament. The Traditional Latin mass usually offered only a brief reading from the New Testament epistles and a Gospel pericope. It is very limited compared to the richness of the current Lectionary which includes, on Sundays, an Old Testament passge, a psalm, a New Testament epistle and a Gospel passage. Further the sequential reading from one of the four Gospels along with a matching Old Testament reading is helpful. The readings from the Traditional Latin Mass tended to skip around and its logic was not always clear.  As a preacher and lover of Scripture I have been richly fed by the new lectionary. I could wish for a slightly better translation than the current NAB we use here in the States but in the end I feel very well schooled by the newer liturgy when it comes to Scripture.

3. Restoration of the General Intercessions – There is a strange moment in the Old Mass when, after the homily and creed the priest turns and says to the people (Dominus vobiscum  (The Lord be with you) and they reply et cum spiritu tuo (and with your spirit). He then says, Oremus (Let us pray). But there is no prayer. He simply turns back to the altar and the people are once again seated. Many centuries before there had been bidding prayers here similar to our current “Prayers of the Faithful” or “General Intercessions.” They had been composed by Pope Gelasius but were later suppressed by Pope Gregory since they prolonged the Mass. But somehow the call to prayer (that odd little “oremus“) stayed there all those centuries.

There was need to attend to this. Either restore the prayers or drop the call to prayer. The current, Ordinary Form of the Mass has restored these prayers or general intercessions. I think this is a valuable aspect of the Ordinary Form of the Mass if it is done correctly. We ought to to pray for others as is so beautifully done in the Eastern Rites of the Church. It seems suitable that, after hearing and reflecting on God’s Word, we be drawn to pray for ourselves and the world.

However there is a tendency in some parishes to misunderstand the nature of these prayers. They are general intercessions, not particular ones. The prayers ought to be of a general nature not for every one’s sick cousin, aunt, or brother, mentioned by name with a full medical report included in the prayer. Rather we pray for the sick in general, for the poor, for Church leaders, Government leaders, for abundance of the fruits of the earth, for peace and so forth. Specific political and idiosyncratic prayers are wholly to be avoided.

If these norms are observed, the general intercessions (or prayer of the faithful) is a beautiful and ancient practice restored in the ordinary and newer form of the mass and it also links us more to the practice of the Eastern Rites.

4. The general rediscovery of the existence and role of congregation is a good part of the newer Ordinary Form of the Mass. In the Traditional Latin Mass, especially in its recited form the congregation had little to do but watch the Mass. The priest interacted only with the servers who made the responses on behalf of the people. Even when the priest turned to say something to the congregation he was instructed to look down.

If members of the congregation did wish to interact and make Latin responses this was made more difficult by the fact that the Mass was largely whispered by the priest. In the 1950s attempts were made to remedy this by encouraging the people to learn their responses in the Mass and use missals to follow the Mass carefully. Permissions were given for the priests to say the Mass in a louder voice and microphones were even added to some altars. But the lengthier Latin responses were still difficult for many ordinary Catholics to make and keep up with.

Today, in the newer liturgy the role of the congregation is respected and they are expected to play an active role in the Mass and make responses proper to them. It is true that there has been some obsession with this by overzealous liturgists. At times some of them demand that the people do everything and that there is never a place for a choir to sing a more advanced setting of something. But in general, the integral involvement of the congregation in the newer and ordinary form of the Mass is something I value highly.

5. The Vernacular is also a positive development. I love the Latin Language but I also know that it is a great advantage to have many parts of the Mass in the local language. This has assisted in greater participationof the faithful in the Mass to an immense degree.  It is difficult to expect the congregation to take a routinely active role if the Liturgy is almost wholly said in a language they do not know. Simple Latin responses are one thing, but try to get the whole congregation to say the confiteor (I Confess) well together. It can be done in some self-selected congregation where there is interest in Latin, but in more general settings it would be difficult.

That said, it is a true loss that most of the faithful have become completely separated from any experience of the Mass in Latin. This is something not envisaged by the Council which permitted a wider use of the vernacular but also commended the use of Latin and foresaw it’s continued common use in the liturgy.

A further point here is to lament how poor our vernacular translations have been for years and how good it is that a more accurate translation is on the way. Praise God.

6. Flexibility and the wider possibility for inculturation is also something I appreciate about the newer Ordinary Form of the Mass. Careful balance is needed here and rubrics need to be followed but the greater allowance for wider forms of music and cultural expression has allowed the Liturgy to flourish in different settings. I have a vibrant African American Catholic Parish wherein gospel music and extended preaching along with a charismatic enthusiasm give real life to the Mass in an authentic manner.

It is true that not every experience of inculturation with the new Mass has been as successful. This is especially true in more suburban American settings where culture is more secular and ephemeral and too many worldly forms find their way into the Mass. But where is a sacred tradition to draw on, it is nice to have some flexibility to incorporate this.

There is no doubt that the newer Ordinary Form of the Mass has some serious issues. It emerged in a time of great cultural tumult and emerged as if out of a whirlwind. We are still waiting for the dust to settle in many respects. But there are good and wonderful things as well. Pope Benedict is helping a great deal to reconnect us to tradition and to see both forms of the Liturgy as beneficial to each other.

It is fine to have a preference but I am blest to love both forms and serve vibrant and passionate communities using both forms. Both communities love the Lord and are serious about the liturgy and deeply connected to it. What a blessing to look out each Sunday and see, not boredom, but engaged and passionate people, alive and aware that the Lord is ministering to them in the sacred liturgy. What a blessing, a double blessing!

Here is an interview I did about the Traditional Latin Mass and my love for it.

Posted on

The Day Hawking Blew It

 Msgr. Pope did a great job introducing us to the pastoral letter on the New Evangelization and we will continue to write about it as it becomes a way of life for Catholics in the archdiocese.

One dimension of the New Evangelization is engaging people in conversation and not missing an opportunity to propose that the Catholic faith has the best answers to life’s biggest questions.

In the Beginning

This came to mind, when I saw the news about Stephen Hawkings new book. I started to write something about it and realized I would not be able to make sense of the argument in the space of a blog, but, I knew who could do it. Alfred Turnipseed is the Coordinator of Christian Initiation for the archdiocese and a former astronomy major. Alfred has a real gift for taking complicated concepts and breaking them down in a way that not only makes sense but that you can remember the next time it comes up in conversation.  So, Alfred is my guest blogger today. I will be happy to pass any questions along to him for answers.

From the desk of Alfred Turnipseed

That day began like any other workday: I arrived at work, turned on my desktop computer, and waited what seemed to be a thousand years for it to boot up.  Thus I began my daily “ritual”: After checking my emails, I opened Internet Explorer so as to peruse the headlines on Yahoo’s homepage.

That’s when I saw it: “God did not create the universe, says Hawking”.

At first, I thought it was a joke.  When I clicked the link, I fully expected to be taken to a page at The Onion.  And that’s when I discovered—this is for real.  “He finally did it,” I said to myself.  “He just had to go ahead and blow it all, dagnabbit…!”

He, by the way, is Stephen Hawking, British theoretical physicist and cosmologist, the recently retired Lucasian Professor of Mathematics at the University of Cambridge (a post once held by the great Isaac Newton), and author of the internationally best-selling A Brief History of Time—the Most Celebrated Scientist In The World.

My “dagnabbit” (or some such term denoting extreme irritation caused by grave scandal) spontaneously came to mind because Hawking is also a lifetime member of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, who famously once wrote, “If we discover a complete theory [of the universe], it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason—for then we should know the mind of God.”

(It would seem that for Hawking, science has proved that God is so unnecessary as not to exist at all.  So much for “knowing the mind of God.”)

Okay.  So what did Hawking actually say during this, his most recent “declaration”?  His words, taken from his new book, The Grand Design—words which stir new passions in me every time I read them—are as follows: “Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing.  Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist.  It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going.”

Now, I admit it: ever since I gave up my astronomy studies (at Cornell, no less) for philosophy (and eventually, theology), I’ve had a slight case of “scientist-envy.”  After all, theoretical physicists can get away with saying things that—were I to say them—would get me at least puzzled stares and at most laughed out of the room!  I mean, the most eminent cosmologist on Planet Earth has declared that our 13.7-year-old, goodness-knows-how-big universe just popped into existence (1) from nothing, (2) by itself, and (3) that this was all a result of gravity.  Let’s look at Hawking’s statement point-by-point.

1.          From Nothing:  These words should be familiar to all well-catechized Catholics.  The Latin term is ex nihilo.  Indeed, Catholics do believe that the universe and everything in it came into existence out of nothingness (see the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Nos. 296-298), or in the words of Bible, “I beg you, child, to look at the heavens and the earth and see all that is in them; then you will know that God did not make them out of existing things…” (2 Maccabees 7: 28).  So far, so good.

2.         By Itself: Now here’s where things start getting ugly.  There is an old saying in Latin—ex nihilo nihil fit—”nothing comes from nothing”.  Now, here, we must be careful.  As stated just above, Catholics clearly believe not only that something can come from nothing, but that everything comes from nothing; that’s what creatio ex nihilo (“creation out of nothing”) means.  For Catholics, then, “nothing comes from nothing” must express something (pun intended!) more sublime—namely, that by itself, only nothing can come from nothingness.  To speak somewhat more subtly—nothingness, in and of itself, does not provide sufficient reason for anything to exist.

3.         Everything is a result of gravity: Nevertheless, Hawking does seem to think that nothingness can provide sufficient reason for the universe to exist, and for him, this reason is “gravity”.  But here’s the rub: whatever gravity is (whether a force, a law of physics, a mathematical reality, etc.), it is definitely not nothing.  In other words, whatever Hawking means by nothing (physical nothingness) he can’t mean what the Catholic Church means by nothing (metaphysical nothingness).  For the Church, nothing doesn’t simply mean “no matter,” “no energy,” and “no forces”; nothing means nonexistence (once again, read 2 Maccabees 7: 28 above).  Now, even Hawking would have to agree that gravity possesses some type of existence.  So whatever Hawking means by nothing, he can’t mean nonexistence, since gravity exists.  What, then, is Hawking saying?  He seems to be saying that in the beginning, there was gravity (which, in Hawkingspeak, exists, but is also nothing), and from gravity, all things that now exist, exist.  Does this make any sense to you?  Yeah, I didn’t think so!

Hawking’s statement denying the existence of, and even need for, God, has caused something of an uproar among those who care about the (seemingly) competing claims of science and religion to explain everything.  In Great Britain, the Anglican Archbishop of Canterbury, the Catholic Archbishop of Westminster, and prominent Jewish and Muslim leaders have condemned Hawking’s “scientific atheism” as yet another case of physics overstepping its bounds.  After all, as implied above, physics is the science (or philosophy) of matter and its motion, energy, and forces.  Metaphysics (“beyond physics”), on the other hand, is the philosophy (or science) of being and existence.  So, as soon as one starts making declarations about existence, one crosses the line from physics into metaphysics.  Given all this, it really makes no sense to apply the laws of physics—or the principles of mathematics—to questions of existence.  In fact, from the perspective of genuine metaphysics, there is Being/Existence itself, and that which comes into existence or derives its existence from Being/Existence itself.  The former is God, and the latter are the principles of mathematics, the laws of physics, and ultimately, the entire universe (including space-time and non-spatial/non-temporal reality).  The point: God doesn’t “set the universe going,” as Hawking seems to think believers believe.  Rather, God causes everything to be, including the mathematical principles and physical laws that “set the universe going.”

(Note: it makes no difference whether there are, in fact, many universes or even an infinite number of universes—all derive their being from God.)

What does all this demonstrate?  Only that Stephen Hawking has no more disproved the existence of God than he has proved the existence of the extraterrestrial intelligent life forms that he so firmly believes in!  (Talk about “blind faith”!)

A final thought: If you’ve been reading between the lines, you’ve realized that “proving” or “disproving” the existence of God is not like proving or disproving the existence of some thing.  God, after all, simply IS.  In other words, “proving the existence of God” is like proving the existence of Existence.  I mean, once you realize that for any thing to exist/be, there must be EXISTENCE/BEING, you simultaneously realize that any discussion about God puts you in a whole new territory of thought (theology … ha!).  In fact, if you start thinking (actually, praying) about this really hard, you might cross into deep spirituality­—and you’ll “see” why so many saints and mystics could say that “God is nothing,” because God is not “a” thing, because God IS … and since God IS, in him, we will live forever.  “Therefore, since it is the Creator of the universe who shapes each man’s beginning, as he brings about the origin of everything, he, in his mercy, will give you back both breath and life…” (2 Maccabees 7: 23).

“The mathematics of the universe does not exist by itself, nor … can it be explained by stellar deities.  It has a deeper foundation: the mind of the Creator.  It comes from the Logos, in whom, so to speak, the archetypes of the world’s order are contained.  The Logos, through the Spirit, fashions the material world according to these archetypes.  In virtue of his work in creation, the Logos is, therefore, called the “art of God”….  The Logos himself is the great artist, in whom all works of art—the beauty of the universe—have their origin” (Joseph Ratzinger/Pope Benedict XVI).

Posted on

God’s Love For Us Is Crazy! A Meditation on the Gospel for the 24th Sunday of the Year

Crazy! – The three parables of today’s lengthy Gospel challenge our conventional thinking. All three of them are quirky and describe people doing things that we most likely would NOT do. In fact all three of them, especially the first two, seem crazy. Who would ever do what the shepherd of the lost sheep and the woman of the lost coin do? No one, really. Likewise the Father in the Story of the Prodigal Son breaks all the rules of “tough love.” His forgiveness has an almost reckless quality. No father of Jesus’ time would ever tolerate such insolence from his sons. It just wasn’t accepted. So all three of these parables, at one level, are just plain crazy.

But that is one of the most fundamental points Jesus seems to be making here. The Heavenly Father’s love for us is just plain “crazy.” I do not mean it is irrational by using this word, but it does stretch the limits of our human thinking. Neither do I intend irreverence by using the word “crazy.” Permit a preacher’s hyperbole so that we can enter into the astonishing quality of God’s love and mercy. It cannot be understood or really explained in human terms. Who really understands unlimited and unconditional love? Who can really grasp the depths of God’s mercy? His grace is “amazing” in that it goes completely beyond my ability to comprehend. It transcends merely human concepts. Thank God! If God were like us we’d all be in trouble, frankly, we’d all be in Hell.

Let’s look at each Parable. The Gospel texts are too lengthy to reproduce here. But you can read the whole of it here: Luke 15

1. The Parable of the Lost Sheep– The Lord speaks of a shepherd who leaves ninety-nine sheep to search for one who is lost. Would a shepherd likely do this? Probably not! The passage drips with irony, even absurdity. Perhaps if the lost sheep were near at hand he might venture over the next hill. But the average human shepherd would cut his losses and stay with the ninety-nine. Many of us might even consider it irresponsible to leave ninety-nine to search for one. Some people try and make sense of this parable by appealing to possible shepherding practices of the First Century. But this seems to miss the point that God’s love is extravagant, personal, and puzzling. In the end, it would seem that God loves us for “no good reason.” He seems to love us even “more” when we stray. He intensifies his focus on the one who strays. To us this is not only crazy, it is dangerous, possibly enabling. But don’t try to figure it out. Don’t analyze too much. Just be astonished, be amazed. Yes, this is crazy. That God loves me is crazy, unexplainable.

2. The Woman and the Lost coin– A woman loses a drachma. It is a small coin. Not worth that much really, perhaps one day’s wages for an agricultural worker. In modern terms less than $100. Not insignificant, but not really huge amount either. She sweeps diligently for it. So far, this seems reasonable. I’d probably look around a while for a missing “Benjamin” ($100 bill). But then it gets crazy. She finds it and rejoices to such an extent that she spends most, if not all of it, on a party celebrating the found coin! Crazy! But that is exactly the point. God doesn’t count the cost. Some commentators try to explain the craziness away by suggesting that perhaps the coin had sentimental value as part of her dowry or ceremonial head-dress of ten coins. But here too, over analyzing and trying to explain or make sense of it may well miss the point. This woman is crazy because God is crazy. His love for us is extravagant beyond what is humanly reasonable or explainable. Don’t try to figure it out. Don’t analyze too much. Just be astonished, be amazed. Yes, this is crazy. That God loves me is crazy, unexplainable.

3. The Prodigal Son– A young son, entitled by law to a third of the Estate (since he was the younger son) tells his Father to drop dead. He wants his inheritance now. The old man isn’t dying fast enough. Incredibly the father gives it to him! Crazy! No father in the ancient world would ever tolerate such irreverence and insolence from a son. The Father is a nobleman (land owner) and could hand his son over to serious retribution for such dishonor. The son leaves his father and goes off to “a distant land” where he sinks so low, he is looking up to pigs. He comes to his senses, rehearses a speech and returns to his father, hoping only to be a hired worker.

But here’s where it gets even crazier! The Father sees him a long way off (meaning he was looking for him). He does something a nobleman would not do: he runs. Running was considered beneath the dignity of a nobleman since it would imply he was either a slave on an errand or a fugitive running. Further, in order for a person to run in the ancient world, they had first to gird the loins of their garments. Since the garments were long flowing robes they had to be “hiked up.”  Otherwise, the legs would get tangled in the garment and the person would trip. But for a nobleman to show his legs was considered an indignity. Get the picture? This nobleman, this father, is debasing himself, humbling himself. He is running and his legs are showing. This is crazy. Do you know what this son has done? Done he deserve this humble love? No! This father is crazy! – Exactly! The heavenly Father is crazy too. He actually loves me and humbles himself for me. He even sent his own Son for me. Do you know what I have done….what you have done? Do we deserve this? No! It’s crazy.

The second son is also a handful. When he hears of the party for the wayward brother he refuses to enter. Again this is unthinkable in the ancient world for a son to refuse to report when summoned by a father. What does the father do? He comes out and pleads with him! Again, crazy! Unthinkable. No father in the ancient world would ever permit a son to speak to him in the way this second son spoke. The son basically calls him a slave-driver who issues orders and refuses to enter the party that his father is hosting. He says he’d  rather celebrate with his friends than with his father. But (pay attention here), the goal in life is not celebrate with your friends. The goal in life is to celebrate with the Father in heaven.

This father is crazy. He is crazy because God the Father is crazy. Do you know what it is to refuse to do what God says? And yet we do it every time we sin! The heavenly Father should not have to tolerate this. He is God and we are creatures. If he wanted, he could squash us like a bug. But he does not. The father in this parable is almost “dangerously” merciful. Shouldn’t his sons learn a lesson here?  Shouldn’t he punish them both for their insolence? Yes, all our human thinking kicks in. But God is God, not man. There are other scriptures that speak of his punishments. But in the end, none of us get what we really deserve. The point of Jesus here is that God is merciful and his love is crazy. It makes no human sense.  His love for us is extravagant beyond what is humanly reasonable or explainable. Don’t try to figure it out. Don’t analyze too much. Just be astonished, be amazed. Yes, this is crazy. That God loves me is crazy, unexplainable.

Crazy!

Posted on

Challenges to Evangelization in our Culture: Obstacles Can Be Opportunities and Open Doors

 Archbishop Wuerl issued a Pastoral Letter this past week entitled Disciples of the Lord: Sharing the Vision. A Pastoral Letter on the New Evangelization. You can get the Letter in PDF format by clicking on the title in the previous sentence.

The letter is an excellent reflection and exhortation to the Church on “Job 1,”  which is making disciples of all nations by bringing them to the obedience of faith and the sacramental life of the Church. We reflected on that last week as a prelude to the release of the Pastoral Letter. You can read that post here: It’s Time to Obey Christ and His Command that We Evangelize

In the Letter the Archbishop present a succinct and clear description of some of the central challenges we face in our culture when it comes to evangelization. These challenges affect evangelization not only outside the Church but inside as well. I’d like to present some excerpts of the Pastoral Letter in this regard and reflect on them is this post. The Archbishop’s words are in bold and italic black letters. My comments are indented and  blue normal text face.

 The Archbishop begins by describing the staccato quality of communication today:

[T]imes change. The contemporary culture has reached a point where it turns off what is not immediately accessible. Our society prefers to listen in sound bites, rather than in semesters. Slogans replace thoughtful explanations (Page 10).

Being a person of faith requires thoughtful reflection. Many of the truths of faith require more than a sentence to explain or understand. But attention spans are very brief today. We have remarked on this blog today that most Catholics want better and more meaty homilies. But most Catholics also want 7-10 minute homilies. But is 7-10 minutes a week really enough time for priests to teach thoughtfully? Can the deeper things of faith be compressed in this manner?

On television there is a “seven-second rule.”  That is to say, the picture or camera angle must change at least every seven seconds or the station risks loosing viewers. What has television done to our attention spans? This visual “seven second rule”  has bled over into a frantic pace of talking heads on TV who speak in a staccato-like manner about issues that really need more distinctions and greater time. But the rushed and hurried format of TV and radio  have influenced how we expect to communicate. As the Archbishop points out this approach to communicating is not well suited to the careful explanations of the Catholic faith.

The Catholic faith is a smart and thoughtful system. Two thousand years of reflection means that we speak very carefully and with balanced distinctions learned over millenia. The modern setting makes it difficult to set forth these nuances and distinctions. The faith often requires careful balance. So this first challenge mentioned by the Archbishop is a tough one since it often means the conversation is over almost before it starts.

We must work hard to engage modern listeners. One of the ways I try to attract reader to a blog I write is by a catchy title. This is not always easy. But it is like a sound-bite, or a “hook” that catches attention. I also try to give a bold line summary of many paragraphs to help the reader’s attention span and get the main point out. As the Church seeks to better evangelize we too have to do a better job of initiating the conversation and holding people’s attention along the way.

The broad advances of globalization over a relatively short span of time have had significant effects on daily life…..The significance of neighborhood and local relationships seem less important to a highly mobile society. Entire generations have become disassociated from the support systems that facilitated the transmission of faith (pg 10).

The Hub of the Community – Most older Catholics, especially those who grew up in ethnic communities in larger cities, remember how important the neighborhood parishes were. They were the true hub of the community. You didn’t just go to mass there. You went to school there. All your closest friends were there. There were social clubs, movie nights, bingo, credit unions, etc. Many of the parishes taught English to immigrants and other life skills. My local parish in Chicago even had a pool and a skating rink! Most Catholics in urban centers identified their neighborhood by the parish name. “Where do you live?” “I live in St Al’s…..I’m St. Mary’s….” Catholics huddled close to their parish in those days. This is what the Archbishop means by “support systems.”

Faith, culture and neighborhood were tied closely together in those days. As Catholics moved to the suburbs some of the closeness diminished. As an entire generation moved not only out of the neighborhood but out of the area entirely, the “ties that bind” broke down and the connection between faith and culture became more distant.

Overcoming the obstacle? – With such a high degree of mobility and spread out neighborhoods the Church faces a significant challenge is remaining a significant fixture in people’s lives. I’d be interested in your ideas of how to overcome this challenge and become a more vital and broad based community for Catholics. I know in my own parish we’ve tried to reconnect with our neighbors by sponsoring a wide variety of social activities such as concerts, neighborhood meetings, and socials. I think people thirst for some connection to others. The key is how to get the Church once again be the palce that quenches that thirst.

Two generations of secularization have fashioned this time when some do not even know the foundational prayers, or understand the most basic of Catholic devotions, including Marian devotions, and many have not been introduced to the lives of the Saints. Still others do not sense a value in Mass attendance, fail to avail themselves of the Sacrament of Penance, and have often lost a sense of mystery. (Pg 10).

Yes, we have a lot of rediscovery to do. Here I see some signs of hope as younger Catholics have rediscovered the beauty of many Catholic practices and traditions. They are a small percentage of youth over all, but a vital remnant. It is almost like they went into Grandma’s attic and found some old tarnished things and brought them down like a treasure only to have Grandma say, “Oh that old thing?!” But we ought to encourage the young in their rediscovery. They may tend to romanticize the past, but proper distinctions can come later. For now let’s encourage the rediscovery of the sacred and traditional we notice in many of the young.

The Archbishop then effectively summarizes recent Papal teaching by giving a litany of trends that also challenge the proclamation of the faith and make the world hostile:

  1. Consumerism suggests that our worth is  found in the things we accumulate.
  2. Individualism demands that we rely on no one but ourselves and our personal needs always take first place. 
  3. Skepticism pressures us to trust only what we can observe and measure, and purports to destroy the classical and time-tested relationship between faith and reason and threatens to reject the basic right to religious liberty and freedom of conscience.
  4. The attempt to recast human sexuality as casual and entirely recreational has led to an untold weakening of and continued assault on marriage and family life.
  5. Autonomy convinces us that fidelity to faith only restricts us. The popular absorption with constant activity leads us to believe that unless we are always busy and hectic we are behind schedule. (Pg  11)

Paradoxically, these trends not only challenge us but also open the door for us, since many have noted these trends are are, frankly, weary and wary of them. Here too, many young people say to me that it is things like these that have made the world seem untenable to them and the Church more reasonable. The tension of these trends incite a desire for change and open the door for us to provide a credible alternative.

Well, these are just morsels to whet your appetite. Please take time to read the whole letter. I will summarize more next week but don’t wait to get a copy or download the PDF.

This video depicts other problems and solutions to enhance evangelization:

Posted on

Is the Cost of Living Really Higher?

When I prepare couples for marriage I encourage them to a have a larger family. After all, God said, “Be fruitful and multiply, fill the earth and subdue it” (Gen 1:28). I ponder with these couples that many married people no longer multiply; they merely replace themselves, and barely replace, at that! Many  have just two, sometimes only one child. I recall to these couples how when I was growing up it was more routine for there to be three, four, or five children in a family. My family had four. I glowingly report that my cousins had nine kids in their family and that my one brother and sister-in-law have six kids. My other brother and sister-in-law have three. As I talk to the couples in this way and encourage a larger family they being to look at me funny: “He can’t be serious!” When I ask for their reaction, many (though not all) say something to the effect, “Well, Father, economics have changed and the cost of living is higher today than it was back in the 1950s and 1960s. People can’t afford to do today what you are suggesting.”

Is the cost of living higher? Actually, no, at least not in terms of all the basics. In fact, prices today, adjusted for inflation and earning power, are actually significantly lower. The problem today is that we want more of everything. More on that later. But, for now, let’s look at some data. I apologize that the latest data I have comes from a 1997 report of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas. You can see the full report here:  Time Well Spent: The Declining Real Cost of Living in America.  I want to propose that the data from 1997, though older than I’d like, still provides a pretty current picture, since inflation has held pretty steady since 1997. Further, most of the data I am going to share is not expressed in dollars but rather in hours of work needed to pay for certain products.

Let’s start with the cost of a gallon of gasoline. Everyone likes to complain that gas prices are always going up. But actually, in the last 100 years they have steadily declined in inflation-adjusted figures and in the minutes of work needed to afford a gallon of gas. Look at the table at the left. You can click on the image to make it larger. When gas first began to be widely sold in 1920 it took almost 35 minutes to earn enough money to buy a gallon of gas. Today it takes the average American less than 6 minutes to earn the money necessary to buy a gallon of gas. This steady decline in the cost of gas is due to an increase in the wages of the average person and an actual decline in the price of gas in inflation-adjusted dollars. So gas is not going up over all. The graph does show a brief spike in the late 1970s due to the gas shortage. We also had a brief spike about seven years ago when, due to market adjustments, the price soared to over $4.00 a gallon. But the price has adjusted back downward to its overall long-term trend. So gas prices are not higher (relatively) than they were for our parents and grandparents. In the 1950s, people had to work, on average, twice as long to afford a gallon of gas as compared to today.

How about the most basic commodities of food, clothing, and shelter? Surely they absorb far more of our income than in the past. No, actually not, and in fact in a dramatic way. Look at the table at the right. You can click on the table to get a clearer view. Notice that in 1901 over 76% of income was spent on food, clothing, and shelter. In 1995 only about 38% of income was spent on these things. I do think this number is higher today, though, than it was in 1997. As you recall, the housing market became overheated and housing prices soared. However, the bubble burst last year and housing prices have tumbled to a more reasonable level. That’s bad news for people locked in mortgages from the last ten years, but good news for those seeking to buy today. A further thing to note is that in some areas housing prices are much higher than others. It is remarkable how much house you can get for $300K in many places in the mid-west compared to what the same square footage costs on the coasts. But again, the national average percentage of our income that has to be devoted to the essentials of food, clothing, and shelter is lower today, not higher. Now here, too, the problem with housing today is that most people want to buy huge houses that they can barely afford. But this is not because the cost of housing has actually increased. Rather our demand for more square feet and amenities has. More on this later.

Looking more closely at food, the chart at the left shows how many minutes a person had to work to afford some basic food items. Again, the numbers have dropped dramatically. Here too, this is due to two reasons. First, the average wage of Americans has increased significantly and this increase has far outpaced inflation. Second, the actual inflation-adjusted costs of most of the food products listed has dropped. This is due to more efficient farming, marketing, transportation, and so forth. The fact is, these things cost us a lot less than previous generations of the 1950s and the 1920s.

Finally, just a look at the chart to the right in terms of actual prices. Again, click on the chart to see a clearer image. The left column show the price of an item in 1897. The right column adjusts those figures for 1997, showing, not the actual cost in 1997,  but what that product would cost if the economic realities of 1897 were operative today. You can see by looking at the chart that ordinary household items cost a lot more in 1897  than we pay today. Imagine an ordinary pair of scissors costing $65, or a pair of nylons costing $22, or an aluminum pan costing $32. Most of the items on the list are far less expensive today.

So here is some data that speaks to actual cost of living today compared to previous times. The actual prices we pay are far less than those in the 1950s or 1920s and earlier paid.

Now the couples that look bewildered as I tell them to have a larger-than-average family, and who claim that the cost of living is higher today are often amused by these data, but not impressed. The fact is, they know it costs a lot to live today, and so do I. But why is that so?

The clearest answer as to why it is expensive to live today is not so much higher prices as it is that we want more of everything. We want bigger houses, fancier cars, more clothes, more options, more, more, more. The average size of a house in 1950 was 1,100 square feet. Today it is over 2,000 sq. ft. Many people I know routinely buy homes approaching 5,000 sq. ft. with a great room, cathedral ceilings, and every amenity you can image from granite countertops to jacuzzi tubs. One TV was common in the 1950s. Today there are often five or six. I shared a room with my brother for a good part of our early years. My 9 cousins had two rooms (boys and girls) in bunk beds. Hand-me-down clothes were a common money saver and the older children helped take care of the younger ones. Our many appliances also use a lot of electricity. Next time you’re enjoying your wide-screen, plasma, HD TV, go out and look at your electric meter. I haven’t mentioned air conditioning and many other appliances, but by now you’re getting the picture. We want more, bigger, the latest, and so forth.

The fact is, children have moved way down on the list. What we once most valued, children, we now often see as expensive and limiting in terms of the other things we want more. But it is not really children who are expensive, it is our lifestyles that are expensive. I realize medical costs are higher but, there too, we want and demand more.

In the end, we have changed. Blaming it on costs isn’t really the issue. Really, it’s consumption; it’s desire on steroids; it’s slavery to all the latest comforts and conveniences. Maybe it’s even just plain greed. To think that we might live more simply in a smaller, less expensive house and drive an older car in order to afford more children is almost “unthinkable” to us moderns. So the birth rate keeps dropping in the western world; our churches and schools grow emptier and our nursing homes begin to fill. Thank God for immigration. Without it, we would be in serious economic and social crisis.

And to the couples who stare back at me incredulously, I don’t apologize. I just smile and say, “Evangelization begins at home! Have lots of babies and raise them Catholic! The Church needs you; this nation needs you. Without new life and growth we’re dying.”

Life  isn’t really about things; it’s about people. An old saying goes,  “The most important things in life aren’t things.”

I know some of you will think I’m crazy, too, or that I’m missing something here. I also realize that direct comparisons to bygone eras are not possible and that additional things need to be added to this reflection. But that’s why there are comments, so have at it! But I offer this final thought: “It’s not really about cost; it’s about what we want.”

Posted on

The Cross is the Tuning Fork of the True Faith

A Cross, not a cushion – Some argue that religion, faith, is a man made fiction, meant to soothe our difficult life with stories about ultimate victory in a heaven somewhere. I believe is was Karl Marx who thought of religion as an opiate of the masses in that it blunted the difficult reality of life in the same way that opium dulled the minds of drug users. But a charge like this cannot apply to the true Christian and Catholic Faith. There are consolations, to be sure,  from faith. Yet at the center of the true faith is a cross, not a cushion and this is an important corrective to those who think of religion merely as something to soothe us.

The cross also goes a long way to speak to the Divine origin of our Holy Faith. If the faith were an invention of man what is the cross doing there? I don’t just mean Jesus’ cross, I mean ours. Jesus did not just carry his own cross, he told us we’d have to carry ours. And this teaching on the cross is not just an incidental sidebar, the cross is absolutely central. Now it seems to me that if our Holy Faith were man-made, there would not be a cross as the central tenant, but rather a pillow, a giant fluffy pillow.

Man made religion would exult pleasure, prosperity, consolation, affirmation and so forth. But true religion, God’s Holy Faith, holds up the cross, the cross of repentance, self-denial, self-discipline, sacrifice, living for others, and so on. This hardly seems to be something that we human beings would devise, given as we are to selfishness. And what’s even more amazing, and surely something no human being would think up on his own, is that the cross truly brings life. It is in losing our life that we find it and gain it (cf  Matt 6:25). No human wisdom is this….it must be from God!

The Cross is like a tuning fork –  It’s what you use to be sure that the preacher is “in tune” with the true faith of God or to discover that he is just preaching a false version of the faith, one not of God. There are false preachers out there today and one way to tell that they are false is that they seldom or never mention the cross. They talk about prosperity and blessings, rewards and gain. Nothing intrinsically wrong with those to be sure. But do they mention the cross? Do they mention self-denial, self-discipline, repentance and the fact that we are all called to share in the sufferings of Christ? If they do not, they are not of God. Beware the preachers of the “prosperity gospel.” Beware of a cross-less Christianity. There is joy in faith to be sure, but there must also be the cross. God does not only affirm, He also disciplines, matures and quickens the Christian, always with love.

St. Augustine rebuked the false shepherds of his day in these words:

“The Apostle says, ‘All who desire to live a holy life in Christ will suffer persecution.’ But you say instead…’All things will be yours in abundance!’ Is this the way you build up the believer? Take note of what you are doing and where you are placing him. You have built him on sand. [But] The rains will come….! [Rather,] put him on the rock. Let him be in Christ. Let him consider Scripture which says to him: God chastises every son who he acknowledges. Let him prepare to be chastised or else not seek to be acknowledged as a son. (sermo 46:10-11)

The video below from a very strange little comedy called “Dogma.”  The scene here depicts a mixed up bishop who wants to refashion the Catholic Faith and make it a more “pleasant affair.”  It’s a pretty silly scene but there is a serious point: The cross is like a tuning fork. Without the “A 440” of the Cross the whole symphony is out of tune. With that in mind, watch this video of a false teacher (comically portrayed) who wants to substitute a pillow for the cross, a false Jesus for the real one a false teacher who  exults affirmation in the place of transformation.

Posted on

Burning the Quran is a Bad Idea and a Sin

It is a bad idea to burn the Quran, a book considered holy to over a billion people, and it’s a sin. Do I really need to say this to a fellow Christian? But Pastor Terry Jones wants to publicly burn copies of the Quran this Saturday, September 11. You can read more here: Pastor Wants to Burn Quran

I know he is trying to illustrate some important things. He is trying illustrate the western value of free speech, usually lacking in the Islamic world. He is trying to illustrate religious freedom here in the west and the lack of it in the Islamic world where Bibles have in fact been burned. He is trying to draw attention to the violent threats that have continued to emerge related to his plans.

Intentionally giving offense is wrong – I do not deny that there are problems in the Islamic world. But I also know that it is wrong to intentionally and grievously give offense to the religious traditions of others. Proper discussions, even debate about religious differences are healthy and part of evangelization. But ridicule and offensive practices directed against others is not of the Christian faith. Scripture says: Always be prepared to give an account to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that is in you. But do this with gentleness and respect (1 Peter 3:15).

Further, to tempt others to sin is wrong. It is a true fact that Pastor Jones’ plans have incited anger and threats. There are many in the Islamic World who have, in fact, a violent sense of their faith. Their view is morally wrong. But to needlessly incite that anger is also wrong. Knowing that there are violent tendencies in sectors of Islam, it is wrong to inflame those tendencies and draw others to anger and violence. In effect Pastor Jones is tempting others to sin. He may have a right to do this but it is not necessary for him to do this. This compounds the sinfulness of the planned book burning.

It is also wrong to endanger the lives of others by reckless behavior. It is a strong likelihood that hundreds, possibly thousands may die if rioting occurs. It is easy for us to say, “Well they shouldn’t get so worked up about it….see the problem is theirs.”  That is a debate for another time. But this action is sure to inflame passions. General David Petraeus has warned that our troops will also be endangered by these reckless plans. He has urged Jones to back down. Pastor Jones says he will “pray about it.”

Pastor Terry Jones is gravely misled if he thinks Jesus might tell him to do this. Jesus had a different notion: You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? (Matt 5:43-47)

We need to have an on-going discussion with the Islamic world about religious freedom and about the violence in growing sectors of Islam. But buring the Quran, a book they consider sacred, is no way to further such a discussion.

I’d like to know what you think of this. I hope all of us will be careful in this discussion to make necessary distinctions and maintain a respectful discourse. Issues such as this inflame passions. Further, it is helpful to see this issue not merely as a referendum on Islam. There are areas for appropriate concern when it comes to Isalm and how it interacts with the non-Islamic world. But a primary issue for us here should also be, is what Terry Jones plans to do what a Christian ought to do?

Posted on

The Biblical and Heavenly Roots of the Sacred Liturgy

Catholics are often unaware just how Biblical the Sacred Liturgy is. The design of our traditional churches, the use of candles, incense, golden vessels, the postures of standing and kneeling, the altar, the singing of hymns, priests wearing albs and so forth are all depicted in the Scriptures. Some of these details were features of the ancient Jewish Temple, but most all of these are reiterated in the Book of Revelation which describes the liturgy of heaven.

The liturgy here on earth is modeled after the liturgy in heaven and that is why it is so serious to tamper with it. The Book of  Revelation describes the heavenly liturgy and focuses on a scroll or book  which contains the meaning of life and the answers to all we seek. It also focuses the Lamb of God, standing but with the marks of slaughter upon it. Does this not sound familiar? It is the Liturgy of the Word and the Liturgy of the Eucharist.

We do well to be aware of the Biblical roots of the Sacred Liturgy not only for our own edification but also as an answer to Protestant Christians who have largely set aside these rituals and, some of whom, criticize our use of them. Many people consider our rituals empty and vain, “smells and bells.” Some consider austere liturgical environments devoid of much ritual to be “purer,” and closer to the worship in “spirit and in truth” that Jesus spoke of in John 4.

To such criticisms we must insist that these rituals, properly understood, are mystical and deeply biblical. Further, they are elements of the heavenly liturgy since almost all of them are mentioned as aspects of the worship or liturgy that takes place in heaven. In this light it is a serious mistake to set them aside or have a dismissive attitude toward them.

With that in mind we ought to consider the Biblical references to the most common elements of Catholic and Orthodox liturgies. I place an ocassional note in Red where it seems appropriate.

 Candles  –

  • Rev 1:12-13 Then I turned to see the voice that was speaking to me, and on turning I saw seven golden lampstands,  and in the midst of the lampstands one like a son of man. In traditional catholic parishes there are six candles on the high altar and a seventh candle is brought out when the bishop is present.
  • Rev 4:6 Seven flaming torches burned in front of the throne.

Altar –

  • Rev 9:13 The sixth angel sounded his trumpet, and I heard a voice coming from the horns of the golden altar that is before God.
  • Rev 8:3 Another angel, who had a golden censer, came and stood at the altar. He was given much incense to offer, with the prayers of all the saints, on the golden altar before the throne.

Chair –

  • Rev 4:1 and lo, a throne stood in heaven, with one seated on the throne! And he who sat there appeared like jasper and carnelian, and round the throne was a rainbow that looked like an emerald….
  • Daniel 7:9  As I looked,  thrones were placed and one that was ancient of days took his seat;… In the sacred liturgy the Chair of the priest is prominent. But, as he takes his seat we are invited not to see Father Jones, but rather the Lord himself presiding in our midst.

Priests (elders) in Albs:

  • Rev 4:4 the elders sat, dressed in white garments…..

Bishop’s Miter, priest biretta –

  • Rev 4:4, 10 With golden crowns on their heads……they cast down their crowns before the throne…. In the Liturgy the Bishop may only wear his miter at prescribed times. But when he goes to the altar he must cast aside his miter. The priest who wears the biretta in the Old Mass is instructed to tip his biretta at the mention of the the Holy Name and to lay it aside entirely when he goes to the altar.  

Focus on a scroll (Book) The Liturgy of the Word –

  • Rev 5: 1 And I saw in the right hand of him who was seated on the throne a scroll written within and on the back, sealed with seven seals; and I saw a strong angel proclaiming with a loud voice, “Who is worthy to open the scroll and break its seals?” And no one in heaven or on earth or under the earth was able to open the scroll or to look into it, and I wept much that no one was found worthy to open the scroll or to look into it. Then one of the elders said to me, “Weep not; lo, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, has conquered, so that he can open the scroll and its seven seals.” In the ancient world books, as we know them now, had not been invented. Texts were written on long scrolls and rolled up.

Incense, Intercessory prayer –

  • Rev 8:3 another angel came and stood at the altar with a golden censer; and he was given much incense to mingle with the prayers of all the saints upon the golden altar before the throne; and the smoke of the incense rose with the prayers of the saints from the hand of the angel before God…..
  • Rev 5:7 and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb, each holding a harp, and with golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints;

Hymns  –

  • Rev 5:8 – And they sang a new hymn: Worthy are you O Lord to receive the scroll and break open its seals. For you were slain and with your blood  you purchase for God men of every race and tongue, and those of every nation.
  • Rev 14:1 Then I looked, and lo, on Mount Zion stood the Lamb, and with him a hundred and forty-four thousand who had his name and his Father’s name written on their foreheads… and they sing a new song before the throne and before the four living creatures and before the elders. No one could learn that song except the hundred and forty-four thousand who had been redeemed from the earth.
  • Rev 15:3 And they (the multitude no one could count) sing the song of Moses, the servant of God, and the song of the Lamb, saying, “Great and wonderful are thy deeds, O Lord God the Almighty! Just and true are thy ways, O King of the ages!  Who shall not fear and glorify thy name, O Lord? For thou alone art holy. All nations shall come and worship thee,  for thy judgments have been revealed.”

Holy Holy Holy

  • Rev 4:8 and day and night they never cease to sing, “Holy, holy, holy, is the Lord God Almighty,

Prostration (Kneeling) –

  • Rev 4:10 the twenty-four elders fall down before him who is seated on the throne and worship him who lives for ever and ever; they cast their crowns before the throne. …
  • Rev 5:14 and the elders fell down and worshiped  – In today’s setting there is seldom room for everyone to lie, prostrate and  flat on the ground. Hence, kneeling developed as a practical solution to the lack of space but amounts to the same demenor of humble adoration.

Lamb of God –

  • Rev 5:6 And between the throne and the four living creatures and among the elders, I saw a Lamb standing, as though it had been slain,

Acclamations –

  • Rev 5:11  Then I looked, and I heard around the throne and the living creatures and the elders the voice of many angels, numbering myriads of myriads and thousands of thousands, saying with a loud voice, “Worthy is the Lamb who was slain, to receive power and wealth and wisdom and might and honor and glory and blessing!”

Amen!

  • Rev 5:14 And the four living creatures said, “Amen!”.

Silence

  • Rev 8:1 When the Lamb opened the seventh seal, there was silence in heaven for about half an hour. (and you thought your priest paused too long after communion?)

Mary –

  • Rev 12:1 And a great portent appeared in heaven, a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars; 2she was with child and she cried out in her pangs of birth, in anguish for delivery.

Happy are those called to his “supper”

  • Revelation 19: 6Then I heard what seemed to be the voice of a great multitude, like the sound of many waters and like the sound of mighty thunderpeals, crying,  “Hallelujah! For the Lord our God the Almighty reigns.  Let us rejoice and exult and give him the glory, for the marriage of the Lamb has come, and his Bride has made herself ready;… And the angel said£ to me, “Write this: Blessed are those who are invited to the marriage supper of the Lamb.”

Golden Vessels, vestments  –

  • Rev 1:12 – And when I turned I saw seven golden lampstands,
  • Rev 1:13 – and among the lampstands was someone “like a son of man,” dressed in a robe reaching down to his feet and with a golden sash around his chest
  • Rev 5:8 – the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb. Each one had a harp and they were holding golden bowls full of incense
  • Rev 8:3 – Another angel, who had a golden censer, came and stood at the altar. He was given much incense to offer, with the prayers of all the saints, at the golden altar before the throne.
  • Rev 15:16 – The angels were dressed in clean, shining linen and wore golden sashes around their chests.
  • Rev 15:17  seven golden bowls

Stained Glass –

  • Rev 21:10 [The heavenly city] had a great, high wall, with twelve gates,… The foundations of the wall of the city were adorned with every jewel; the first was jasper, the second sapphire, the third agate, the fourth emerald, 20the fifth onyx, the sixth carnelian, the seventh chrysolite, the eighth beryl, the ninth topaz, the tenth chrysoprase, the eleventh jacinth, the twelfth amethyst. (The image of stained glass in our Church walls is hinted at here).

Here is but a partial list, drawn only from the Book of Revelation. I invite you to add to it.  You might also read The Lamb’s Supper by Scott Hahn, and The Mass: A Biblical Prayer,by Fr. Peter Stravinskas.