Tag: Faith & Current Events

Looks like were all going to be “treated” to a new series on the Discovery Channel wherein British Physicist Stephen Hawking will ponder theological and philosophical questions. A rather strange thing for a scientist to do actually.

I have no doubt that Stephen Hawking is a fine, even a brilliant scientist and theoretical physicist. But science has a limit, a limit rightly imposed on itself, which explores the physical world using empirical and evidential models that do not go beyond the physically observable world. Scientists, even theoretical physicists,   do well who recognize their sphere, their field. And most scientists are quite willing and happy to acknowledge the self defined world of the physical sciences.

Stephen Hawking however, while clutching the mantle of his scientific robes,  has recently strayed beyond what science can say.  In my opinion he he causes harm to science and also proves himself a poor philosopher to boot.  He is free to philosophize of course like any human being, but he ought not cloak it as science and we ought not give any special weight to his philosophical and theological statements, fields in which he clearly has no proper training. When it comes to these fields he is just “some dude” sipping a beer and opining on the deep questions.

But, sadly we DO have to pay attention to him because so many in our world bow their heads with religious reverence as he speaks, and give a weight to his words on these matters that the words do not deserve.

Mr Hawking was recently interviewed in USA Today about his new series. I would like to excerpt the article here and make some comments of my own. As usual the article is in bold, black, italics, my comments are in plain text red. The full article can be read here: USA Today: Science Snapshot

“I recently published a book that asked if God created the universe. It caused something of a stir,” Hawking, 69, begins on the episode. (The “stir”, in fact, was religious leaders denouncing his book’s conclusion that God was unnecessary to the universe.)

Well, of course we shouldn’t expect USA Today to be sympathetic to “religious leaders,” but “denounce” is an unnecessarily provocative description. Why is our position not described as a “principled opposition” rooted in concerns that Mr. Hawking may be making conclusions that science really cannot make, and that he strays from science into philosophy? Or why was our position not described as an “unconvinced?” For, frankly Mr Hawking’s argument is not airtight or invincible. There are many, who find his premises faulty and his conclusions questionable.

But USA Today would rather just depict us as “denouncers” who shout angry things and throw rocks from the sidelines.

As for me, I love science and am very excited about the amazing discoveries of the past 200 years. But I do not expect science, which studies the physical world using empirical observation, to be able to conclude one way or another about God who is pure spirit. To some extent I think science can draw conclusions that there is a design to the universe, but I do not expect it to make definitive claims, one way or the other, as to the who exactly this designer is.

Is this to “denounce,” or is it, as I propose, to take a principled stand that the physical sciences are a careful discipline which study the material world? And that they ought not be invoked to take philosophical and theological stands on the existence of God or angels, or the soul, or anything non-material.

On the show, he takes viewers on a walk through humanity’s history of appraising our place in the universe, from Vikings facing down eclipses to the laws of modern cosmology, which explain the origin and structure of universe. “I believe the discovery of these laws is mankind’s greatest achievement,” he says.

So it would seem that Mr Hawking, in his series, sees ancient and modern belief in God as just some sort of way to “find my place in the universe,”  as a mere anthropological projection of cosmology? Somehow we are seen as similar to the superstitious of Vikings and other ancients who feared eclipses and other things things they did not understand.

I suspect I am also to suppose that just like we would laugh at, or pity someone getting spooked by an eclipse, we should also laugh at, or pity those who believe in God? It would seem that I am also supposed to presume that modern cosmology has it all figured out, unlike the pitiable ancients?

Mr Hawking has said elsewhere that he thinks belief in God is just a coping mechanism for believers. Well of course that is one way to believe in God. But it is not why I believe in God. Nor is it why most people I know believe in God.

I believe in God because I have experienced his power and presence in my life. I believe in God because I see evidence for his existence in the things he has made, things that manifest both a first cause and evidence an intelligent and purposeful design. I believe in God because he is changing my life, and in the laboratory of my own life, I have tested his wisdom and Word and found them to be true.

I am not consciously obsessed with dying, nor do I need to be comforted and reassured in the face of it. Frankly my faith challenges, more than comforts me. My faith holds up a cross before me, not a pillow. There is surely some consolation in there being a “meaning to my life,” but Mr. Hawking, indeed every human being, seeks meaning.

Believers should not be demeaned and our faith simplified by equating us with spooked Vikings staring at an eclipse. The Roman Catholic Faith is a smart and thoughtful faith extending back 2000 years to Christ, and 5000 years further into Jewish antiquity. We are not the yahoos some like to think we are. We have a strong, lasting and profound theological and philosophical tradition. And these have served as an important foundation for the development of the natural sciences.

In a short, exclusive interview with USA TODAY, Hawking e-mailed his answers to why he is taking on religion to start off the show, and discussed his life and legacy. Here are his answers to some of the questions:

Q: First, we wonder if you could comment on why you are tackling the existence of God question?

A: I think Science can explain the Universe without the need for God.

And I would answer that physical science cannot conclude one way or another on the existence of a purely spiritual Being. Science need have no opinion on whether God is “needed,” for it limits its scope to studying effects, and secondary causality. The primary cause of all things is a philosophical and theological pondering, for it exists before singularity, and thus lies beyond what science can currently measure. In other words, science is not equipped to answer the ultimate question of “why” things exist. It studies things that do exist, and can probe their secondary causes. But primary causality, the ultimate why of the existence of all things lies outside the system.

What Mr Hawking is doing here is not science at all, it is philosophy, and poor philosophy at that. For philosophy carefully distinguishes cause and effect. It also distinguishes primary causality from secondary causality. Even more, it  distinguishes material, formal, efficient, and final causality. Mr Hawking would seem to gloss over all this, and thus portrays his amateur status as a philosopher. If you’re going to enter the world of philosophy you might at least brush up on terminology so as to have a reasonably thoughtful discussion with your interlocutors.

Q. What problems you are working on now, and what do you see as the big questions in theoretical physics?

 

A: I’m working on the question, why is there something rather than nothing, why are the laws of physics what they are.

Well, stick the laws of physics please, because science is not well equipped to answer the ultimate question of why. Ultimate meaning and “why all this”  it just not a physically measurable thing. It is not a question physical science can really answer. How do you physically measure meaning? What are the scales you weigh it in? Does meaning have physical weight? That said, at least he is describing his work as theoretical physics. But remember, physics is going to have “physical” limits and must limit itself to the physical, material world.

Q: What do you see as your legacy in science or for the people who have become enthusiastic about physics as a result of your work and writing?

 

A: I think my most important discovery is the fundamental relation between gravity and thermodynamics (the study of how heat moves through matter) which gives a black hole a temperature and causes it to evaporate slowly.

Cool!

Essentially on “Is There A Creator?,” Hawking notes that on the sub-atomic scale, particles are seen in experiments to appear from nowhere. And since the Big Bang started out smaller than an atom, similarly the universe likely “popped into existence without violating the known laws of Nature,” he says. Nothing created the universe, so in his view there was no need for a creator. That is his explanation for “why there is something rather than nothing.”

Well, the philosophical and logical errors here are more numerous than there is time to explore.

Even scientifically I wonder how we define “nowhere.” It may be a true fact that we do not know where the particles come from or how they appear, but we cannot logically leap to the absolute conclusion that they come form “nowhere.”

To say that they come from nowhere is an a priori assumption.  It is unproved that the particles come from nowhere. And how would we prove that something came from nowhere? It may be that we simply don’t understand where they came from or how.

And, even if we could reasonably prove that something came from nowhere, does that ipso facto mean that it did not exist before it came from nowhere?

I suppose, as a theologian I could proffer that it existed spiritually before it materialized? But of course physical science cannot measure the spiritual and cannot accept my theory or measure it. So it would seem to science that the particle came from nowhere. But that does not mean that it did come from nowhere, only that science cannot explain where it came from or how; at least not now.

For example, a blind man might theorize that raindrops on his head come from nowhere, because he cannot see their cause. But that does not prove they come from nowhere, only that he does not know where they come from or how.

“The series is all about satisfying our curiosity about the world,” Hendricks says. Rather than tackling science like classroom topics, the shows will ask questions and see what research has to say about them, he says, an inversion of the standard science show formula. “That is why we are starting with Stephen Hawking,” Hendricks adds. “We want to be asking the deepest questions we can, such as ‘Did God Create the Universe?”

A question which science can’t answer.

Frankly, save your time from watching this Hawking show. If you do watch it, please remember that Mr Hawking is free to wonder and theorize. But that is all it is, a theory. And remember too that he is wandering as he wonders. He is wandering beyond the proper limits of his discipline. While he may be a fine physicist, but that does make him a good philosopher, any more than it makes him a good car mechanic. I would not want him to work on my car any more than I want to give weight to his amateurish philosophical ponderings. He is free to make them, but they are poorly set forth, based on poor philosophical foundations and logical flaws.  Do not be fooled by his lab coat.

Photo Credit: Yortw via Creative Commons

The cities of the Northeast and upper Midwest were once teeming with Catholics. The city centers featured many and thriving Catholic parishes of various ethnic derivations. Catholics were uptown, down town and all around town. Some of the blocks in the older Chicago neighborhoods would even feature several parishes: there was the Polish Parish, the Irish, the German, and Italian, each of them little cities within themselves. Consider a description of old Chicago and other Catholic cities of the Northeast, by John McGreevy in his Book, Parish Boundaries which I summarize:

Virtually all the Catholic immigrant groups were within two generations of immigration, and all placed enormous financial, social, and cultural weight on the parish church as an organizer of local life. A Detroit study found 70% of Catholics claiming to attend services once a week, as opposed to 33% of the city’s white Protestants, and 12% of the city’s Jews….

The Catholic churches whether they were Polish, Italian, Portuguese, or Irish, simply dominated the life and activities of the community. The Catholic world, supervised by priests was disciplined and local. Many parishes sponsored enormous neighborhood carnivals each year (with local politicians making appearances and local businesses donating supplies).

Most parishes also  contained a large number of formal organizations – including youth groups, mother’s clubs, parish choirs, and fraternal organizations – each with a priest moderator, the requisite fundraisers and group masses. Parish sports teams for even the youngest boys shaped parish identity, with fierce rivalries developing in Catholic sports leagues.

The dense social networks centered themselves around an institutional structure of enormous magnitude. Virtually every parish in the northern cities included a church (often of remarkable scale), a parochial school, a convent, a rectory and often ancillary gymnasiums  or auditoriums.  Even hostile observers professed admiration for the marvelous organization and discipline of the Roman Catholic Church. [e.g. Holy Family Church in Chicago with its massive school next door, more buildings are behind].

Brooklyn alone contained on hundred and twenty-nine parishes and over one hundred Catholic elementary schools. In New York city more generally forty-five orders of religious men lived. Nuns managed twenty-five hospitals…schools enrolled 214,000 students. This list of summer camps, colleges and universities , retreat centers, retirement homes, seminaries and orphanages was daunting.

For all Euro-American Catholic groups, neighborhood, parish, and religion were constantly intertwined…Small statues of Mary or local saints appeared in neighborhood yards, while crosses and religious artifacts decorated individual rooms. Catholic parishes routinely sponsored parades and processions through the streets of the parish.

Catholic leaders leaders deliberately created a Catholic counterpart for virtually every secular organization. The assumption was that the parish must make every effort to become the real center of attraction in the lives of the parishioners, it must become the hub around which a large number of their interests revolve. [McGreevy, pp. 13-28]

Decline – We are well aware and have discussed on this blog frequently that many of these once thriving centers of Catholicism are in decline. Parishes and schools are closing in large numbers. The dramatic decline in Mass attendance from numbers near or above 70% down to our current 27% is part of the explanation. But another part of the explanation in the migration of Catholics out of the cities and out of the Northeast.

The first of the great migrations took place after the Second World War when Catholic moved in large numbers to the newly created and growing suburbs. They moved from uptown and downtown to “out of town.” The once great churches of the city center grew gradually more empty and less vital.

The initial experience in the suburbs was similar: large parishes, large schools, large buildings, all packed to the gills,  and many activities. But suburban life was less tightly knit and ethnic ties were also being lost in those days in the great melting pot of the American experience. In a very subtle, but steady way, the cohesiveness of Catholics and parish life was becoming less a dominant force. Slowly Catholics ventured out of the Catholic “Ghetto” and sought wider connections and approval outside the Catholic world. The election of John F. Kennedy both symbolized and furthered this trend.

Then in successive waves, the sexual revolution, and the over all cultural revolution of the late 1960s caught Catholics and the Church unprepared. As secularism has grown and eroded the influence faith once had, even many of the flourishing suburban parishes of the post-war era are now much smaller and far less vital.

The second of the great migrations is occurring right now as Catholics, in large numbers, have left the “uptowns,”  “downtowns” and “just out of towns” of the northeast and are headed “low down” to the south, and the Southeast. A quote from a recent CARA blog illustrates this point:

[Consider that], in 2001, the Archdiocese of Atlanta had more than 320,000 Catholics, 131 active diocesan priests, and 77 parishes (note in 1991, the Archdiocese had 176,000 Catholics and 65 parishes). Moving a decade ahead, the diocese now has 900,000 Catholics, 141 active diocesan priests, and 87 parishes. Thus, the number of Catholics increased by 181% in the last decade but the number priests only increased by 8% and the number of parishes by 13%. This means the number of Catholics per parish in the Archdiocese has grown from 4,156 in 2001 to 10,345 in 2011. Ten new parishes have been added to accommodate 580,000 additional Catholics. [1]

Now that is remarkable growth. And many cities of the South and Southwest are having similar experiences. As can be seen, the growth is so remarkable and so quick that it is difficult to keep up. Due to a shortage of priests and other resources, the usual approach of southern and southwestern dioceses is to build large churches that can seat well over 1000 and establish what is, in effect a mega church.

I have celebrated masses in the deep south, in some of these parishes, and the experience is quite amazing. One parish near Jacksonville, Fla, where I celebrated one Sunday, seated over 2200. It was a tasteful, in fact a very beautiful Church, but it was big, with a fan shaped main floor and a spacious balcony ringing three sides. The place was packed that morning, with three other masses scheduled and a vigil the night before, all filled or at least well attended. Forty-eight extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion came forward to assist with the distribution. The parking lot outside featured shuttle buses to get the farthest parkers back and forth. The pastor explained that this was the trend in the south. With few priests, parishes have to built big to get as many Catholics in at one time as possible and keep the number of masses manageable for the priests.

At one level it  all seems very exciting to hear of booming Catholic Parishes that need parking shuttle buses. It reminds one of the massive and flourishing parishes that once filled the northeastern cities. But there are some concerns that go with these mega-parishes. It is articulated at the CARA blog:

[A] study, conducted by CARA, … finds that larger U.S. parishes tend to have lower rates of attendance, lower levels of sacramental activity per household, and less giving per registered household than what is reported in smaller parishes. [So], there appears to be a size limit at which the parish community begins to become less active and less giving. [2]

In other words, such parishes risk loosing personal contact with souls. And without personal contact and a sense of being an integral member of a community, it is easier for people to drift and fall away. Large numbers can hide steady erosion for a while but it would seem that the impersonal nature of large parishes allows the faithful to become disengaged. They can also hide behind the notion that “someone in this big parish will handle the trouble that the pastor is enunciating.” As impressive as large parishes are, it is clear from our experiences after the war, and now, that they can also become unraveled very quickly if no one feels essential.

The CARA blog concludes:

As we have shown in a previous post, there are not a lot of dioceses building new parishes in areas where the Catholic population moved and is growing strongly…..But a parish building boom will likely be needed in the U.S. Sun Belt in the 21st century….It may be time to ask, with great care as well, when and how do we open new parishes where they are needed? After moving, will Catholics always have a new Catholic home to “come home” to? [3]

I do not know what the perfect size for a parish is. And even if I say a number, vocations to the priesthood are simply going to be a factor. As for me, I have 900 registered families and about 550 on a Sunday morning. For me, this is a perfect number. It is large enough for us to be financially viable, indeed we do very well, money wise. It is also large enough that I can have a fairly diverse cadre of volunteers to accomplish needed tasks. Yet is small enough for one priest to handle and even can get to know many people well. It is small enough too that people know each other well and people are missed when the drift away. But this model cannot be sustained diocesan-wide. We just don’t have enough priests to staff enough parishes at this scale.

But, it would seem, that large parishes still need a small town feel and experience, according to the CARA study. It makes sense, otherwise, people get lost. So, small targeted groups that gather in large parishes are needed to provide the personal encounters so necessary in our Christian walk. Perhaps it is targeted Bible studies, fraternal organizations, mother’s groups, etc.

The great mega parishes of the 20th Century urban north had their day but collapsed quickly, for it would seem that their communal ties declined after the War, or were not as deep as they were thought to be. People left too quickly for us to conclude that urban and ethnic communities had ties that really bound them together after WWII. It would seem we were a 1000 miles wide, but only two inches thick. The large suburban parishes of the postwar suburban north and east have also struggled to keep Catholics tied in. Big looks great but it isn’t necessarily better. While it is true we cannot simply build lots of small parishes, we have to be creative and build communities within parishes wherein there is accountability and love, something personal and engaging, something which makes people experience that they are essential to the Lord and to the Church. Doin’ the uptown,  low down, may not be the dance we want to recreate as the Church spreads (low down) to the south.

I am interested in your thoughts, especially if you are member of a large Catholic Parish.

Photo Credits:

Holy Family Church (Upper Right) from the Archdiocese of Chicago Archive,

Lower Left, Our Lady Queen of the Universe, Orlando, from the Website.

–

 

Here are some fond remembrances of going to Catholic School in Chicago:

Through the Middle Ages, the Cathedral was the true skyscraper of most ancient cities. It could be seen for miles and dominated, not only the skyline, but occupied the central square of the town. As the Renaissance set in, palaces and government buildings began to dominate the central square and even the skyline as the churches shrunk in stature and moved to the side streets. Today, our great cities such as New York and Chicago have skylines dominated by great buildings of commerce and industry. The Cathedrals of these great cities would be hard to find by most visitors. What does all this say about our culture? How are we known by our buildings? What are the priorities and central focus of our time?

Now, all that said, I suppose it would be silly to build a 150 story church. At some point a church serves its purpose at 100 feet.  And,  buildings for people to live and work in can serve practical purposes at higher and higher levels.  Still, the poet in me says, love should soar highest. So the poet and dreamer in me says, what if the tallest of our buildings were places that served the poor, cared for the sick, or were places where people crowded in to make spiritual retreats and study God’s Word? I know, absurd! Call me a dreamer. Call me inefficient, and say that we don’t need taller spiritual buildings, just more of them. Perhaps. But there’s something about a tall building that says: “prominent,” “important,” “significant” and “preeminent.” The dreamer in me suspects that if our spiritual values were more central, our skylines would announce it to any passerby: “Here is a city whose God is the Lord!” (Psalm 33:12). Just dreaming!

Here’s another dreamer, Fr. Robert Barron, who, in this video, makes an interesting observation in the renaming of the Sears Tower to the Willis Building about 2 years ago. It now appears that the three tallest buildings in Chicago are all named for, and owned by’ Insurance Companies…go figure! And while you’re at it, ask, “What does this say?” It seems to say, that the more affluent we become, the more anxious we become. With all our stuff we have much more to protect, much more to insure, much more to be anxious about!

And in whom do we trust to bring us this protection? Surely God, you will say! Ah, but look again; by our buildings you will know the answer! Jesus saves, but, “just in case He can’t come through,” man insures. Or so our culture would seem to say.

To be sure, there is nothing evil about insurance, but our buildings tell us we are quite anxious about many things and that insuring and ensuring looms large in our culture.

Yes, we who have much, have much to lose. And our anxiety about that sticks out; it looms large, and stands tall, very tall.

I remember my first experience of being the topic of discussion on the Internet. It was about a year before I was asked by the Archdiocese to be a blogger for this Blog of the Archdiocese. I had been on the cover of US News and World Report. The photo was taken of me celebrating the Traditional Latin Mass. (See photo at right). The photo circulated on some of the Blogs at that time and while the reaction was, overall, positive, I was quite surprised by some of the highly critical and personal nature of the negative remarks:

1. Look he’s not using canonical fingers (I was).
2. He’s leaning back too far (maybe)
3. He’s holding the chalice too high and looks far too dramatic (maybe, but I was praying, not counting inches of altitude).
4. Why’s that deacon touching the altar – he no right to do that! (because he’s older and needed to steady himself).
5. Why are those vestments so modern?  (What ever)
6. The Burse should have been on the gradine, not the mensa (oh what a wretch am I!)
7. Why does that Monsignor have a red (actually it was fuchsia) pom on his biretta? (seen in another photo). Who does he think he is, some prelate? (Actually I didn’t know any better, and was given the biretta by an older Msgr to wear who had it from the days before 1970 when the norms for vesture changed. I have discontinued the pom).
8. US News should have sought out the Fraternity or the Institute for a better picture (sigh….yes!)
9. Etc.

One kind lady finally intervened and said, “Stop! You’ll make it so no priest ever wants to celebrate the old rite.” She was right and I have been told by a lot of younger guys who love the Traditional Mass that they are “scared” to celebrate it. There are various reasons but one of them is the lack of breathing room for honest mistakes and the need to learn by experience. Some of them have experienced that this  that doesn’t seem offered by some of the very few (but sadly vocal) rubricists in congregations, and  more on the Internet who seem to want to demonstrate their knowledge of some of the most arcane details, at the expense of others.

The experience for me was a kind of wake up call to the nastiness that sometimes sets in on blogs where people interact with people they don’t really know. There is, thus,  little appreciation for the feelings or the personal dignity of the ones with whom they disagree or critique.

As I have I now been blogging for over two years, I have become accustomed to difficulties the Internet can sometimes present to civil discussion. The vast majority of commentators here are kind, and willing to engage in mutually respectful conversation in the comment threads. I am able to post most of the comments that come in without any concern.

I DO appreciate vigorous and honest discourse and am undisturbed that disagreements are frankly aired. But there comes a line that, when crossed, makes me hit delete, or post the comment, but with a blow of the referee’s whistle.

Recently however, I am getting more comments that are just plain rude, mean or unnecessarily personal. I have had to press the delete button more than I’d like. It is not just the use of profanity that is alarming (and that too is becoming more common), but it is the excoriation of one’s opponents with dismissive labels and terms which either question their orthodoxy, or their love of the poor, label them as rigid or as communists, etc.

There is also the unnecessary ridicule of positions. And most of these comments come in the context of a discussion outside dogmatically defined issues, where reasonable people, reasonable Catholics,  can differ and terminology may have more than one meaning, where the presumption of good faith and the celebration of the Catholic faith ought to be presumed. Gentle corrections are appreciated, but making a person look foolish is usually unnecessary.

The most nasty remarks often center around liturgy and the social doctrine of the Church.

As for liturgy, while there are norms to which we must submit, there is also legitimate diversity permitted by the Church.  It is alright to have and state preferences, and even advocate for them. But too often various “camps” hurl stones back and forth and look down on others who are merely exercising legitimate options. The lovers of the Traditional Latin Mass have spent years in exile and been treated very poorly. Others who prefer more charismatic forms of the Mass are also ridiculed by some. And both these communities can also dish it out. But to be clear, as long as we stay inside the guard rails of the norms, there are various and legitimate lanes, whatever your preference. A little mutual respect please.

As for the social doctrine of the Church, here too there is a wide variety of understanding as to the application of those teachings. Catholics of different political backgrounds will differ on how best to apply some of the norms in caring for the poor. Further there has been the division of the Church along certain lines,  the life and moral issues on one side, and the social issues on the other. To be sure, we need a division of labor. Everyone can’t do everything. Those who advocate for the poor ought to be glad that others are working to end abortion. And those in the pro-life community ought to be glad, and see as partners, those in the Church who advocate for, and serve the poor. We should value one another as the basis for any discussion. There may still be differences on details and emphasis, but the over all demeanor should be one of grateful appreciation for the work of the other. That should set the tone for the discussion.

Even in the necessary corrections where a commentator, or the blog author, has strayed from doctrinal accuracy, it is healthy to presume good will on their part, and that they did not wish or intend to stray from Catholic teaching. Further it is helpful to assume that terminology can and does often have technical uses, and more colloquial uses as well. This is not a blog for highly trained theologians, it is for the ordinary faithful who often speak in manners that are more relaxed and less technical. Rushing to accuse others of “error” or “heterodoxy” or humiliating them for the terminology of their comment may win the argument, but discourage a member of the faithful from ever evangelizing again, or being  “out there” with their faith. Here too, gentle correction and distinction can be helpful, but with love. We are all brothers and sisters.

As for those outside our faith some of whom may initiate with a hostile tone, I will often call them on it and encourage them to stick to the issue. But here too, we who respond ought to try and stick to the issue.

Some helpful advice was recently posted at  The New Liturgical Movement regarding comments and, while the subject at hand was artistic criticism, I have the adpated the advice for our context. Please consider what David Clayton says:

It seems to be an aspect of human nature that criticism flows more easily than praise, and this is never more apparent in the comments at the bottom of blogs! However, some subjects particularly seem to attract the ire of readers…I always hold my breath. I know it will attract a hail of criticism from people who worry that it does not conform to what they believe to be the standard…Criticism and differing opinions are not bad things in themselves. After all, we are trying to re-establish a culture of beauty in the West and beauty by its very nature it is difficult to pin down precisely. One should expect differing reactions and ideas of what is good. So please, let’s have them. However, I would like to make some points about the nature and tone of some of the criticisms made.

First, a request: if you are stating opinions, please do so in the spirit that concedes that others may have other perfectly valid opinions. Like email, blog comments seem to be a forum in which it is difficult not to express things abruptly and so appear rude. It’s not always easy I know, to make sure that what we write has a gentle manner. I would ask us all to try. [People]  must expect critique of their position, but they should not have to put up with rudeness. ….

If you can explain why you think as you do, that would be helpful, especially if you don’t like something. If you do not, then what you are giving us [seems] just a subjective opinion….[And]  if they are opinions, let’s make it clear that this is all they are rather than presenting them as indisputable truths….

Archeologism: the comments of some seem to stem from an assumption that culture existed in a perfect form at some point in the past and that the work of man over time has caused it to degenerate. The main concern for those who believe this, therefore, is a strict conformity to the past glorious (sometimes arbitrarily assigned) age. Working from tradition, in contrast, is more nuanced. It respects the past and does not seek change without good reason, but always seeks to understand why something was done in a particular way. It accepts that sometimes we must develop and reapply the core principles in response to contemporary challenges or if there is a need to communicate something new. Sometimes this development will be so great that a new tradition is established…..

Dealing with imperfection: even if something is partially wrong or in error or even just disliked, it doesn’t mean that we can’t learn something from it……

As a general principle, given that we are in a process of re-establishing a culture of beauty, I would generally advocate a conservative approach to what goes in our churches at the moment. However,…. flexibility and adaptability underpinned by good discernment is the source of richness and vigor in Christian culture. …No doubt along the way there were innovations … that were rejected as a whole, but nonetheless contributed something to what eventually became … acceptable.

These are adapted excerpts the full article is here: Some Thoughts About Criticism

A final disclaimer. I do not claim I get the balance and the tone perfectly. This post is not written from on high, from one who is perfect, to those who are not. Rather this is for “us” who interact on this relatively new medium of the Internet where the face and person on the other side of the screen are not seen. Yet those with whom we interact ARE human persons. In recent months I have been increasingly bothered at the tone of some incoming comments, most of which I had to delete, and you never saw. Some of them were just plain unkind, others hypercritical, still others rude and riddled with personal attack. Some others were clearly only an attack, and not a request for real discussion. Some were directed personally at me, others at some of the commentators here. Still others were mean-spirited attacks at the bishops, those who prefer other permitted liturgical forms, or those who come from a different theological tradition within the Church than they.

I will say that some of these comments cause me great personal grief, whether for myself or those who are unfairly or excessively attacked. So for us all, whom Christ loves, and for whom he died, let’s consider that the one on the other side of the screen is a human person, worthy of respect. And to be clear, most of us don’t need this post in an absolute sense, but just as a gentle reminder. God bless you.