In Love with Love, or in Love with Oneself?

September 18, 2009

But I want there to be a counter.  I’m Catholic, through and through.  It is my lens, it melds my worldview, and even though it is influenced by all the other facets of my identity, it is at my core.  But I don’t go to Mass regularly, I don’t have a relationship with my bishop, and I don’t think either of those diminish my Catholicism.

My Catholicism is wrapped up in a deep joy and love of the Catholic imagination, of the deep sanctity of all life and wonder that I learned from being Catholic.  I am Catholic not only because I can be no other, but because I find a refreshing depth and life in this tradition.  Sometimes despite myself, I am in love with being Catholic.

Is this being Catholic? Can I really call myself Catholic without much more than the occasional acknowledgment of the institution? Who gets to define what Catholic identity is?

I don’t understand how someone can proclaim to have a Catholic worldview, and yet they are not a regular attendant at Mass.  Isn’t it at Mass, through the readings, homily, and our unity with Christ and fellow Catholics in the Eucharist, that our “Catholic” worldviews and identities are shaped and formed?  And can we really proclaim our worldview to be thoroughly Catholic in this life, or must we wait to really see in a “catholic” sense until our rewards (we pray) in heaven?

Again, how can one see that there is depth and life in a tradition that one doesn’t participate in regularly.  Does this make sense to other people?  Does the idea of catholicity require us to not merely “nod” our heads at the “institution,” but rather to be active participates in the worship life of the Church, since catholic does mean (καθολικός (katholikos)) “universal” (i.e. embracing all those who follow the Catholic faith).  To be Catholic, as in Catholic Church specifically, basically means we are in communion with the bishop of Rome and other Latin/Eastern Rite Churches.  It seems to me that being Catholic necessarily requires an ecclesiastic (since “institutional” sounds very pedantic) sensibility, and a recognition of our corporate nature (which is informed by tradition…a tradition tended to, and handed down by, the “Church institutional.”

Some people are in love with the idea of love, much like our author seems to be in love with the idea of being Catholic.  That doesn’t mean one is in love.  Or Catholic.  Is this unfair?


Catholic Rhetoric and Its Excesses, Pt. 1

August 15, 2009

Below highlights the problem with normal Catholic rhetoric, especially in the blog-o-sphere:

Big Abortion alone is allowed to stay behind the curtain away from public scrutiny.

I say we should talk about abortion. Heck, show one on television. You want America to become a pro-life nation overnight, show a live late term abortion. Don’t do it when kids are watching and put warnings up beforehand. But do it.

If you want America to think you’re a crazed, religious lunatic Catholic, keep making arguments like this.


Further Thoughts on the System

August 13, 2009

If you remember this post, where our young author talks about “missing out” on various Church traditions and teaching, despite the fact that our author grew up in the Church (a post-V2 church that seemed to lack kneelers…and kneeling).

I then quoted this:

Our entire life, the whole liturgy, and everything ceremonial are symbols. If you abolish the symbols, then you tear down the walls of your own house. When we abolish the signs, we lose our orientation. Instead, we should search for their meaning … one should unfold the core of the symbols. … The signs are not to be questioned, we are.

I then raised the issue as to whether one can really reform something, the Church for instance, when one doesn’t know the basic aspects of the faith and tradition.

I have to complexify this issue, because our author is seriously interested (and knowledgeable…though one would know that from the blog) in theology, particularly feminist theology, and has had classes in “Catholic studies”.  I suppose that raises the question: what qualifies as “basic Catholicism?”

In this very long post, complete with sermon, I drew a distinction between strict theological learning, and being culturally informed.  In that post, I was arguing against my Franciscan friend who wanted to get rid of Latin, and who wanted to avoid doctrinal discussion in the sermon (in favor of a personal, emotionally meaningful message).  In both instances, what I seem to be rebuking is a tendency to deemphasize our Catholic identity and heritage.  In the sermon, I noted that popular Catholic practice helped solidify the Theotokos argument, and in doing that, strengthened Cyril’s Christological position against the reforming urge of Nestorius.  The common people’s strong Catholic identity, which included a deep devotion to Mary Mother of God, helped settle a theological debate.

Today’s reformers seem to know their theology.  In fact, they are quite familiar with their modern Catholic theologians, as well as their modern Protestant theologians.  It is seemly, perhaps even comely, to know Rahner and Tillich.  However, its less seemly to want to look at Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange or de Lubac.  And lets not even talk about Aquinas or Augustine as being theological relevant, apparently.

Even still, many of our reformers only know Post-V2 (and “supposed” V2 inspired) practices, which, in many places literally gutted the Church of 2000 years of history.  In place of this Tradition, a false sense of historicism was adopted.  Like AnaBaptists or Luther, we wanted to return to more “ancient” practice, regardless as to whether the practice was 1) really that ancient, 2) really that common, 3) really that desirable.  In these “older” practices, which were merely (at times) novelties falsely called old, Catholic reformers “discovered” a whole theological “tradition” that they had been waiting for, and strove to put that into practice against the “heavy-handed Medievalism” of the “Tridentine Rite Church”, with her silly beliefs in rosaries, Latin, the Tridentine Rite, etc.

Yet our reformers, in the interest of opposing this oppressive Medieval Church with their “novelties falsey called old (or Historia in aliquid obsoletum detorta),” and having been raised in churches more in line with (seemingly) more Protestant views than Catholic, forcefully rally themselves against around the standard of “true theology,” and carry that against the cultural and historical traditions and aspects of the Church.  Not unlike Nestorius, our reformers want to correct our “medieval  theological understanding,” and show us that, at its basic roots, Catholicism isn’t really that different from anything else.  In other words, we sacrifice identity for theology.

What troubles me is when our young reformers don’t seem particularly interested in studying the basic cultural traditions and identities that exist in Catholicism (unless they are related to a culture that isn’t Caucasian American or Pan-Catholic, i.e. Hispanic culture, African culture, etc.).  The funny thing is that they recognize they are missing out on something, but are still relatively confident that they really know what Catholicism should be.  Much like Nestorius.  We see how that ended.

Of course, one of the reasons I continue reading the blog mentioned above is because the author routinely posts about her own discoveries of  ”traditionally” Catholic practices.  One post mentions Mary.  Another the Communion of the Saints.  I see this as a good thing-her wonder and joy in these “Catholic identity markers” reminds me of my own wonder (back when I was just an unruly convert).  So while I probably don’t agree with her ecclesiology, we both can find something quite “wonder-full” in the delightfully Catholic aspects of our faith (Mary, anyone?).

At least, I think so.


How Fancy

August 12, 2009

If you want to see good website design, I would direct you to (of all places), St. Hugh’s Charterhouse.  Yes, the Carthusians have a nice website.

I know.  I’m shocked as well.

If you need some relatively utilitarian design, here is the Charterhouse in Vermont.


Great Liturgical and Prayer Resource

August 7, 2009

Some folks may remember, if you have followed the blog for that long, that I had a post concerning the Liturgy of the Hours.  Soon after my conversion, I became interested in the Hours, and tended to pray them using Universalis.com.

Over time, I found the LOTH, both in translation and content, a little weak.  I realized I was only praying part of a Psalm, and that I wasn’t actually covering all 150 Psalms in the month.  I grew disaffected.

This is when I branched out and picked up two good resources: The Anglican Breviary and the Benedictine Monastic Diurnal.  Both of these use an older set-up for the Office.  The Benedictine Monastic Diurnal uses the original Benedictine arrangement of the Psalms.  The Anglican Breviary follows a pre-’61 arranged of the Psalms as well.  I recommend both.

However, let us pretend you 1) don’t have spare money, and 2) want to explore all the ways that one can say the Divine Office.  The Opus Dei.  What can one do?

I myself us the 1961, John XXIII arrangement of the office.  Sometimes I need to check whether I’m saying it correctly.  That is when I stop by Divinum Officium.  This amazing website will arrange the day’s Office for you according to several sets of rubrics (from the 16th Century to the 1960 New Calendar).  Its an amazing resource!

And, you’ll finally get to pray all the Psalms, unmolested by busy-body liturgists.

Update: I apparently posted a link to a hyper-reactive blog, instead of Divinum Officium.  The link is now fixed.  And just for the record, I was making fun of said blog on another site.  No hyper-reactive blogs (other than Fr. Z) here.  Thank you to those who noticed.


Understand the Basics, Understand the System?

August 4, 2009

I sometimes worry about things like this, especially among reform-minded Catholics (from this blog, which I do read, because I’m ecumenical…even within my own tradition):

My boyfriend shot me a teasing smile.  I refer to him as my personal catechist because he teaches me all the information about Catholic teaching and tradition that I somehow missed out on while growing up in the Church.  This sort of silly yet sincere catechetical exchange is typical of our weird relationship.

Is it a big deal that said reformer doesn’t understand the liturgical basics of the Triduum?  Perhaps not.  At another point, said blogger mentions that she does not know the Confiteor, nor had a particularly strong devotion to Mary.  And her Church, built in the post-concillior period, has finally installed kneelers in order to kneel during Mass.

So this begs the question: how can someone be pro-reform, when they don’t even understand the basics of the faith?  If we don’t understand the basics, how can we presume to alter an entire system?  Is it such that one needn’t understand the system, in order to change it?  What is the system anyway, especially in Catholicism-writ-large?

I think this quote from Into Great Silence expresses my thoughts on the issue:

Our entire life, the whole liturgy, and everything ceremonial are symbols. If you abolish the symbols, then you tear down the walls of your own house. When we abolish the signs, we lose our orientation. Instead, we should search for their meaning … one should unfold the core of the symbols. … The signs are not to be questioned, we are.

The reformers may not wish to demolish our symbols, but if they haven’t been raised with an awareness of them, what is to stop them from tearing down the house unknowingly?  This is my question.


Encountering God

July 24, 2009

Please pardon this hodge-podge of a post, and long too.  But it has a point.

This post, without any shadow of a doubt, really and truly describes the reality of the Faith. Granted, Father is talking about the Orthodox Church.  I would of course like to (and do) say that the Catholic Church also represents this reality, but there has been such a radical Hermeneutic of Discontinuity within our faith (mainly as a result of the “Spirit of Vatican II”, and not necessarily because of the Council itself) that I might have some doubts.  Now Catholics (some educated at YDS/HDS/DDS perhaps) are trying laying claim to God and Divine mandate, like Protestants, without giving the least respect to Tradition-Bishops, doctrine, or any of those things that really make one Catholic.  We’ve abandoned the culture that encourages prayers of intercession to the Saints, or rosaries, or novenas, or visits to the Blessed Sacrament because a “modern American Catholic” is “too cultivated” to indulge in such acts of “18th Century religiosity.”  And what do they have to fear?  Its not like Hell, for these people, really exists.  I question whether God does as well (or whether God is the name they give to justify their social liberalism and acts of “justice”).

Ideally, what should our encounter with God be like?  We have two examples.

1) This week, we celebrated the Feast of St. Mary Magdalene:

She is called “the Penitent”.   St. Mary Magdalen was well known as a sinner when she first saw Our Lord. She was very beautiful and very proud, but after she met Jesus, she felt great sorrow for her evil life. When Jesus went to supper at the home of a rich man named Simon, Mary came to weep at His feet. Then with her long beautiful hair, she wiped His feet dry and anointed them with expensive perfume. Some people were surprised that Jesus let such a sinner touch Him, but Our Lord could see into Mary’s heart, and He said: “Many sins are forgiven her, because she has loved very much.” Then to Mary He said kindly, “Your faith has made you safe; go in peace.” From then on, with the other holy women, Mary humbly served Jesus and His Apostles. When Our Lord was crucified, she was there at the foot of His cross, unafraid for herself, and thinking only of His sufferings. No wonder Jesus said of her: “She has loved much.” After Jesus’ body had been placed in the tomb, Mary went to anoint it with spices early Easter Sunday morning. Not finding the Sacred Body, she began to weep, and seeing someone whom she thought was the gardener, she asked him if he knew where the Body of her beloved Master had been taken. But then the person spoke in a voice she knew so well: “Mary!” It was Jesus, risen from the dead! He had chosen to show Himself first to Mary Magdalen, the repentent sinner.

2) We also celebrated the Feast of St. Apollinaris:

St. Apollinaris was a bishop, martyr, and possible disciple of St. Peter. He was mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles. Apollinaris was born in Antioch, Turkey, and became the first bishop of Ravenna, in Italy. As such he faced nearly constant persecution. He and his flock were exiled from Ravenna by Emperor Vespasian. On his way out of the city he was identified, arrested as being the leader, tortured, and martyred. St. Apollinaris died in the first century.

We’ll leave the matter of St. James until his feast day on Saturday.

So what does contact with the living God do?  What should it do?  It should cause us to repent.  It should reveal to us the love God has for us; a love so consuming, overwhelming, and sweet that we seek to fall before God in supplication.  It should drive us to withstand and suffer all persecution for His sake.  This revelation of God should force us to radically change our lives.  Anyone who has truly opened his or herself to God has not been the same since.  Such was it with Mary Magdalene and St. Apollinaris, and so should it be with us.  It requires much from us, especially obedience (an idea some Catholics in America find loathsome).

The Collects (Mary’s from the Anglican Missal, Apollinaris’ from the ‘62 Missal…sorry, the Anglican one speaks more to my point on Mary):

Almighty God, whose blessed Son restored Mary Magdalene to health of body and of mind, and called her to be a witness of his resurrection: Mercifully grant that by your grace we may be healed from all our infirmities and know you in the power of his unending life.

O God, the Rewarder of faithful souls, Who hast consecrated this day by the martydom of blessed Apllinaris, Thy priest, we beseech Thee:  grant to us Thy servants, that the prayer of him whose holy festival we are keeping may obtain for us the forgiveness of our sins.  Through our Lord.  Amen.

May we ask the same of God.


Sotomayor Went to Hogwarts, or

July 16, 2009

how Christians find a way to call her a witch in literal terms.  I’m reposting the article below, because its just that crazy:

Sonia Sotomayer is very fond of refering to herself repeatedly as a “wise woman” or variously “wise Latina woman” and most of the commentary on this has focused on the “woman” (i.e., feminist/sexist) and “Latina” (i.e., racist) aspects of this phase, but has overlooked the meaning of the phrase “wise woman.”
What is a “wise woman?”
Kudos to Culturewarnotes.com for picking this one up. Have a look at the comments of this article and you will find this:
In my experience with having been married to an ex-Wiccan priestess, and having a collection of neopagan books I’ve used for cultural research that total roughly six shelf-feet, “Wise woman” is always a euphemism for feminist witch (neo-pagan). Whenever you see a feminist “scholar” describing, say, the Witch of Endor from the Bible or the witchhunts of the middle ages, they ALWAYS replace the word “witch” with “wise woman”. I have never heard a feminist or a neo-pagan use the word “wise woman” to describe an actually wise woman. It’s as much a loaded word as a Communist referring to someone as a “fellow traveler”.
As for her being “Catholic”, frankly, the most intense feminist neo-pagans I know have Catholic backgrounds.
At first, one might dismiss this as too far flung, however when you take a closer look it fits her profile like a glove.
The meaning of the phrase “wise woman” as code for neo-pagan feminist witch is well established. Just Google “wise woman,” 10:1 the returns are about neo-paganism, herbalism, moon circles, and aligned products and services. One of the links is to the book “Wise Woman” which is an “intense, absorbing tale, a grisly drama of passion and witchcraft in 16th-century England.”
In the late 80’s PBS began to popularize the ideas of mythologist Joseph Campbell and with him, Carl Jung through the Bill Moyers series The Power of Myth. The ideas of these men, and others, really paved the way for the mainstreaming of neo-paganism in America as an intellectually sophisticated practice about depth psychology and self-actualization. Organizations such as Woman Within International offer women “training” (code for ritual initiation) for “empowerment” (code for witchcraft power rituals) and a network of women who “gather” for mutual support (code for monthly communal lunar rituals). Someone who has been initiated into this is a “wise woman.” The intellectual foundations for this coincide with feminist and post-colonial critical theory. Needless to say, these organizations are stocked with lesbians because it is the spirituality of lesbianism – women power.
These women do not identify themselves as pointy nosed toothless witches that we know from popular culture, rather they see this stereotype as a patriarchial demonization of the “wise woman” herbalist, shaman, reader of signs who is connected to the wisdom of the Earth Mother, or Sophia, or Goddess(es) that were burned at the stake in the millions by the Catholic Church (a popular and wide spread lie that has been discredited but persists). These are not the tatooed, pink hair, black nail polish, pentagram wearing witches that embrace occultism, rather they are professional women who are looking for avenues to increase their power in a patriarchial world through esoteric means and an elite network of spiritual society. Catholicism is an opressor of women in this worldview and totally incompatable.
Sonja Sotomayor has acknowledged that she is not a practicing Catholic, she goes to Church here and there when family duty calls. So, how does a single high powered career woman find nourishment for her spirit if she is a catholic but doesn’t go to mass or participate in community life? Where does she find her spiritual communion with others?
Perhaps she is a member of one of these women initation circles that “train” women for “empowerment” and “gather” regularlly to network and that is where she aquired her identity as a “wise woman” within this spiritual communion?
The Belizean Grove is consciously modeled after the occult men’s group the Bohemian Grove and includes:
The Grove is an international nurturing network that helps women pursue more significant dreams, ambitions, purposes, transcendence, and spiritual fulfillment, while also opening up more leadership opportunities to these women of diverse backgrounds, talents, ages, and skills.
So what is the “trancendence and spiritual fulfillment” offered by this elite group?
Our laws rest on a Judeo-Christian foundation, what do you think of a SCOTUS who is a practicing neo-pagan. Is faith life irrelevant to this discussion?
Was she signalling to her audience that she was part of this network, specifically of a Latin American neo-pagan flavor?
More attention is needed to understand the meaning of “wise woman.” Mind you, she didn’t say “intelligent woman” or “educated woman” or “experienced woman” over and over again. She said, “Wise Woman.”
This has the strong wiff of speaking in code.

Can’t we get her on the merits of her judicial history, rather than concocting crazed witchcraft stories?  As I said to a friend of mine, “Sotomayor is as much a witch, as Pelosi is a good Catholic.”


The Feast of St. Henry

July 15, 2009

Today is the feast of St. Henry, Confessor and Emperor.  What can we learn about St. Henry?

St. Henry, son of Henry, Duke of Bavaria, and of Gisella, daughter of Conrad, King of Burgundy, was born in 972. He received an excellent education under the care of St. Wolfgang, Bishop of Ratisbon. In 995, St. Henry succeeded his father as Duke of Bavaria, and in 1002, upon the death of his cousin, Otho III, he was elected emperor. Firmly anchored upon the great eternal truths, which the practice of meditation kept alive in his heart, he was not elated by this dignity and sought in all things, the greater glory of God. He was most watchful over the welfare of the Church and exerted his zeal for the maintenance of ecclesiastical discipline through the instrumentality of the Bishops. He gained several victories over his enemies, both at home and abroad, but he used these with great moderation and clemency. In 1014, he went to Rome and received the imperial crown at the hands of Pope Benedict VIII. On that occasion he confirmed the donation, made by his predecessors to the Pope, of the sovereignty of Rome and the exarchate of Ravenna.

Circumstances several times drove the holy Emperor into war, from which he always came forth victorious. He led an army to the south of Italy against the Saracens and their allies, the Greeks, and drove them from the country. The humility and spirit of justice of the Saint were equal to his zeal for religion. He cast himself at the feet of Herebert, Bishop of Cologne, and begged his pardon for having treated him with coldness, on account of a misunderstanding. He wished to abdicate and retire into a monastery, but yielded to the advice of the Abbot of Verdun, and retained his dignity. Both he and his wife, St. Cunegundes, lived in perpetual chastity, to which they had bound themselves by vow. The Saint made numerous pious foundations, gave liberally to pious institutions and built the Cathedral of Bamberg. His holy death occurred at the castle of Grone, near Halberstad, in 1024. His feast day is July 13th. He is the patron saint of the childless, of Dukes, of the handicapped and those rejected by Religious Order.

I’m not sure why one would get married if one were going to live in perpetual chastity (Yes, I know marriage was more for social and political reasons back then…its just funny to think about).

That aside: we have an example here (which we are sorely lacking now) of a politician who adhered faithfully to the Catholic Church, and obeyed the Magisterium.  Can any of us imagine a Catholic politician today apologizing to a Bishop for a misunderstanding?  You can barely get Nancy Pelosi to apologize for radically misinterpreting Augustinian theology, let alone get her to apologize for her various un-Catholic positions (including a certain idolatry replacing God with the environment and health care).

St. Henry recognized the authority of the Pope and of the hierarchy, and actively worked towards preserving Christianity in Europe.  If traditional American Catholics ever needed an example of Christian leadership (or if a Catholic politician ever needed a patron saint), St. Henry would be an excellent candidate.

The Collect (from the ‘63 Collegeville Breviary, since the ‘62 Missal version sounds funny):

Lord, on this day You transferred St. Henry from the government of an earthly empire to an eternal kingdom.  You had prepared him by the abundance of Your graces to overcome the attractions of the world; grant that we, following his example, may be able to avoid worldly allurements and come into Your presence with pure hearts.  This we ask of You through our Lord.  Amen.

Readings:  Ps. 36:30-31 / Ecclus. 31:8-11 / Ps. 91:13, 14, 3 / Jas. 1:12 / Ecclus. 45:9 / Lk. 12:35-40 / Ps. 88:25 / Mt. 24:46-47


The Church: “Two Lungs”

July 15, 2009

This post is mostly for:

1) Catholics

especially

a) Converts

I think there is a certain amount of bias on the part of Catholic converts towards the Roman church (obviously…that is why they converted to it).  The Roman church, for all of its mystery (to a Protestant mind), seems less mysterious than the Orthodox churches (and arguably, more reasonable and rational).  I’m not a particularly big fan of this view (even though it seems to be more strongly held in among these Catholics (and Orthodox church itself…Mt. Athos especially).

However, there is another current that seems to be influencing Catholicism, which has streams coming from the right and the left: the “Protestantization of Catholicism”.  It threatens to reduce Catholicism to “Catho-Anglicanism” or “Anglicanism-heavy”.  Thus, I argue that there is much we can learn from the Orthodox Church, in order to help reorient ourselves towards an authentic expression of Roman Catholicism (there is also much we can learn from our own history, Thomas especially).

So, just in case Catholics need a reminder of our shared heritage with the Orthodox Church, here are two texts by JPII that we should study and keep in mind (since the East did contribute mightily to the Universal faith…after all, many of the greats of that period stem from the East):

Orientale Lumen

Euntes in Mundum

They are definitely worth a read through (and if you want more information on the Eastern Rite in the Roman Catholic Church, see Wikipedia).

Update: It seems some Orthodox have been thinking roughly the same thing.  I’ve said as much to friends of mine, so perhaps I have an Orthodox mindset (but then, if I’m protesting the Protestantization of Catholicsm, does that make me part of the problem as well?)