This is so familiar.
University administration everywhere has developed a monstrous business-speak or gobbledygook which is designed to be impenetrable and which translates in practice into the evisceration of liberal education.
In twenty years time students who have been cheated of an education will look back on this generation of university administrators and call them heartless bureaucrats.
Katrina showed how out of touch the bureaucratic elite is with the needs of those they profess to serve.
And of course the ever swelling ranks of bureaucrats are better paid and have plusher offices than the ever dwindling ranks of true scholars and teachers.
Here is another example of an out of touch bureaucracy: http://www.nationalcatholicrepor...orter.org/word/
Interesting that they see the talk of the pre-Vatican II mass as an American red herring, not worth their attention.
One of the most fractious liturgical debates in Catholicism over the last 40 years, at least in the West, has pivoted on the status and use of the pre-Vatican II rite of Mass. Yet to date, not a single participant in the synod has risen either to advocate, or to oppose, wider application of the 1988 indult from John Paul II that allowed celebration of the old Mass with permission from the local bishop.
Quite simply, the old Mass has been a non-issue.
In his Wednesday address summing up the discussion so far, Cardinal Angelo Scola, the relator, reported that the synod fathers seem largely satisfied with the liturgical reforms that followed the council.
"Not a few fathers have remembered with gratitude the beneficial influence the liturgical reform, which takes it origin from Vatican II, has had for the life of the church," Scola said. "In particular, the richness of the Roman Missal was recalled."
If there were to be a serious push for a return to the pre-Vatican II Mass under Benedict XVI, one would have expected it to arise here, at the synod dedicated to the Eucharist.
For the moment, therefore, it would seem that this project does not have the momentum some might have expected after decades of wrenching debate, the election of a pope sympathetic to some critiques of the liturgical reform, and that pope's Aug. 29 meeting with Bishop Bernard Fellay, head of the breakaway St. Pius X Society dedicated to the old Latin Mass.
At an Oct. 13 Vatican news conference, a reporter asked Cardinal Francis Arinze, prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship, about the old Mass.
"No synod father brought up that point," Arinze said. "They're concerned that the Mass be celebrated with faith, devotion, and fidelity to the liturgical books already approved by the Holy Father. [The pre-Vatican II Mass] is not a priority for synod, because no one spoke about it."
Arinze explained that John Paul had already provided for celebration of the old Mass in 1988.
"The real problem we face is that many don't go to Mass, that often those who go don't understand, that too many receive Communion but never confess, as if they're immaculate, and so on. These are the real problems, not what you're talking about."
"Yet to date, not a single participant in the synod has risen either to advocate, or to oppose, wider application of the 1988 indult from John Paul II that allowed celebration of the old Mass with permission from the local bishop. "
Yes, they're trying to ignore the issue in the hopes that it will go away. Kind of like what the U.S. bishops did with the problem of sex perverts in the priesthood taking advantage of children and young men and women. (I'm not saying the bishops in other countries didn't do the same things as the U.S. bishops -- I just mention them because I live in the U.S.)
The issue seems to be a purely American concoction. Where is the worldwide demand for this older liturgy?
Sorry, but do you really not know that Archbishop Lefebvre was not an American?
Lefebvre? Isn't he a schismatic? I was referring to a demand from within the Catholic Church. I have never met any demand or even any request from an individual for the celebration of the Mass in Latin, even in the Novus Ordo version, so I am amazed that it seems to be such a big issue in America today.
I once attended Mass at the Lefebvrite church of St Nicholas du Chardonnet, Paris. It was by far the spookiest liturgical experience of my life!
The Vatican has given this tiny fringe group all it could reasonably ask in allowing the Mass to be said in Latin in the old rite as well as the new. It cannot be expected to accommodate lunatics who want the whole church to go back to the Latin Mass and to the Tridentine version thereof. The Church has moved on pretty unanimously toward a vernacular and inculturated liturgy. Securus iudicat orbis terrarum.
Before Lefebvre fell into schism, he was in full communion with the Catholic Church. Therefore it's a pretty safe bet that the desire for the old Mass arose within the Church and wasn't focused in the U.S.
Chesterton somewhere refers to the "Democracy of the Dead". The Missal of Pius V inspired generations of saints. During the time of the Missal of Paul VI, pews and seminaries have been emptied.[Where pews still exist, that is. If you know what a pew is, however, you're probably some radical schismatic].
Appreciate the report on developments in the synod, as I've had no time to look up what's going on; and it doesn't matter to me that none of the comments in this box, except O'Leary's first comment, have any bearing on the post about academic curriculum. The comments continue in continuity with an ongoing conversation about liturgy, which is fine.
On the latter topic, a few remarks: First, there is an annual pilgrimage from Paris to Chartre in which supporters of the Traditional Latin Mass gather from all over the world to walk the three day's journey to Chartre. I think this is something like the 23rd year. From all reports, it is a fairly large and impressive affair, with large numbers of youth from all over Europe. I do recall hearing somewhere that young pilgrims are running into some political roadblocks with the school holiday on which the pilgrimage falls being revoked -- something to that effect.
I think it was Michael Davies' personal experience of this pilgrimage that led him to declare the Traditional Latin liturgy "the Mass that will not die."
On another, related issue, Fr. O'Leary has on occasion lauded Anglican liturgies for their reverence, decorum and biblical focus. Having come to Catholicism via the Episcopal Church myself, I confess to having some symapthy for this view. Anglican hymnody is still beautiful. Anglicans still use the altar rail for communion and preserve some of the externals of Catholic tradition as well as an atmosphere of reverence and decorum. Nothing slipshod, generally, in their churches. On the down side, however, these positive observations also witness to how far we in the Catholic tradition have fallen from the fonts of our faith. Hundreds of English Catholics embraced death rather than submit to the new state religion represented by Cranmer's prayer book. In at least two major uprisings in England -- one the Western uprising down toward Sumerset and Exeter, the other originating north of London up beyond Grantham towards York -- thousands of Catholic citizens of England rose in rebellion against the Anglican religion and were slaughtered....
... Eamon Duffey's research has revolutionized the Protestant textbook tradition's prejudices about English Reformation history, which have long erroneously supposed the Reformation to be a populist movement. One could say the same of the the supposition that the post-conciliar reforms in the Novus Ordo were populist, when they were almost wholly innovations imposed by liturgical "experts" upon a docile though displeased and depressed faithful. That Anglicanism may offer some lessons in the way of beauty, decorum, and reverence to Catholics today is testament only to how far Catholics have lapsed from the treasury of their own tradition. Finally, where Anglicanism has nothing to teach us is in its utter official indifference to the doctrinal beliefs of the faithful. We have quite enough problems on that front from dissident priests and bishops as things are, thank you.
Bureaucracy, bureaucracy... The following is the sort of vocations campaign that has been tried hundreds of times in the last fifty years. It shows an unwillingness to rethink the ministry, a tired clinging to the Tridentine clerical model. In Dublin we had the "Men in Black" campaign, now its the "Fishers of Men" campaign -- they cannot get beyond a masculinism that is quite out of tune with our culture. A lot of energy and noise will go into this tokenistic campaign that could be better invested. How long will it take them to get the message that no one is interested?
The bishops call their new initiative "Fishers of Men," a reference to the biblical account of Jesus' call to two brothers casting their nets at the Sea of Galilee, "Come ye after me, and I will make you to become fishers of men."
The program has been tested in six dioceses, Father Burns said.
The plan is for priests to meet in their dioceses, relate histories about how and why they became priests, and learn ways to invite others to join.
The program includes a new video that features a young boy who is inspired to become a priest after watching a priest at the scene of a car accident administer last rites to a dying victim. Father Burns said the video was based on a true case.
"The program will make some difference, but I don't think it's going to make enough difference," said Sister Christine Schenck, who directs FutureChurch, a liberal Catholic group that advocates the ordination of women and married men as a solution to the priest shortage.
The nun spoke in an interview from Rome, where she is monitoring the bishops' synod.
"With the numbers of priests we need, there are not that many that are called to celibacy," she said. "Even if the bishops start an all-out campaign and it's wildly successful, there's just no way they can catch up."
"Even if the bishops start an all-out campaign and it's wildly successful, there's just no way they can catch up."
But then, as an advocate of the heresy of women's ordination, it's in her interest that it and all vocations efforts fail, so you'd hardly expect her to say anything different.
More about dysfunctional church bureaucracy, from today's Irish Times:
CATHOLIC CHURCH AND MARRIAGE
Madam, - The Catholic Church lays great stress on authority - the authority of God, the bible, the church, the pope, the bishop, the priest. But it has a long history of ignoring the most basic authority of all: the authority of the facts - the facts of history, science, and human experience, especially the experience of God's holy people, through whose intelligence, faith and daily lives the Holy Spirit is present in the Church.
It was a real breath of fresh air to read Garret FitzGerald setting the record straight about his efforts with the bishops to work out the problems caused by the Church's bigamous remarrying of certain people in some way that would absolve it from the crime of bigamy (Opinion & Analysis, October 8th). Not only was Dr FitzGerald an outstanding statesman with a solid and very Christian understanding of the common good of the State, but he was, and is, more theologically literate than many clergy.
The late Fr Fergal O'Connor, OP, one of the saintliest and most prophetic of Irish priests of the past 40 years, caused a sensation when, in an RTÉ television programme on marriage, he declared that he would like to see the church get out of the whole legal side of marriage. It is almost a scandal, given the current shortage of priests, to see so many thousands of ordained ministers spending their lives in the paperwork of helping people to prove that their marriage was never a marriage in the first place so that they can marry again. This annulment procedure can help only a tiny fraction of broken marriages, but nothing can be done for the vast majority whose marriages break down beyond repair, and are now in "second unions" where they find a real presence of God and his love.
Official teaching at present is that they have all the obligations of being Catholic, but it is God's will that they have to remain celibate for the rest of their lives if they wish to receive Communion. Surely this is a bleeding wound in the body of Christ crying out for some Samaritan to respond in the manner of Jesus.
Church leaders brave enough to respond to Fergal O'Connor's challenge can take courage from the historical development of the Church's efforts to care for marriage. The over-50 generation will recall being taught in school that Jesus instituted the sacrament of matrimony at the wedding feast of Cana. The thousands of lay women and men studying theology around the country now know that before the 11th century there was no such thing as a Christian wedding ceremony, nor was marriage considered a sacrament in our modern sense. For hundreds of years it was the civil government which regulated marriage and divorce among Christians. With the disintegration of civil society Christian leaders gradually took control of marriage legislation, leading to our present situation.
This was a healthy development - an exampl
This was a healthy development - an example of the church responding to the needs of the surrounding culture. Responding to cases arising from the missionary success of the church in pagan lands, the church further adapted its laws to incorporate the Pauline privilege, and the so-called Petrine privilege "in favour of the faith". Present teaching and canon law is that the Pope has no power to dissolve a marriage which is valid, sacramental (between Christians) and consummated (even if only through one drunken act of forced sex). But, for the spiritual benefit of the Christian in break-up situations, the Pope has the power to dissolve (divorce) so-called "natural marriages", which means the majority of marriages throughout the world. Pope John Paul II constantly preached that "divorce is contrary to natural law, contrary to justice, and contrary to the commandment of Christ", but during his pontificate there were thousands of dissolutions of these marriages, processed by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, headed by the then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger. The canon law on these cases is not secret and the statistics are publicly available.
In the course of its history (glorious and also sinful) the Catholic Church has tried to balance ideal and reality, sometimes but not always successfully. We need a courageous, fresh study of the problem, going beyond tidy housekeeping and the fear of scandal to a renewal of our theology, keeping in mind that so many faithful, committed Catholics are saddened that our official church shows little sign of the humility that is a core value of our Christian faith. - Yours, etc,
Fr SEAN FAGAN SM, Lower Leeson Street, Dublin 2.
The Catholic Church has too often, both in the past and the present, lost sight of its real mission, and instead given its energy and attention to its own preservation. The real mission of the church is to preserve and promote the message of Christ, or as Lumen Gentium, the second Vatican Council document on the church, puts it: "The social structure of the church serve(s) the spirit of Christ, who vivifies it", writes Fr Tony Flannery
Obsession about its own maintenance has been a particular feature for the past 400 years of Catholic Church history, since the Protestant Reformation.
To the extent that it has been focused on its own preservation, it has become an obstacle rather than a vehicle for the message of Christ. I would like to give two topical illustrations of how this has worked.
I think it is fair to say that the doctrine of infallibility has caused more harm than good since it was promulgated at the first Vatican Council in 1870. For centuries the papacy had struggled to achieve primacy in the church.
Pius IX introduced the notion of papal infallibility as part of his effort to increase his power. As such it was a teaching that had everything to do with institutional control, and little or nothing with Christ. Down to this day it has caused confusion.
What exactly does it mean? The best explanation I have come across is that given by Bernard Haring, the greatest moral theologian of the 20th century.
He says that for infallibility to be present the Pope needs first to have listened carefully (the word he used is "received") to the consensus of the church, and that includes laity as well as bishops and clergy. Having received the consensus of the church, and promulgated his statement, it in turn needs to be received by the church.
If either of these conditions is not present, then infallibility is not possible. Considering that there has been no real opportunity for open and free discussion in the church in recent years, and that there is no structure by which the laity can be heard, it is hard to see how Haring's conditions for infallibility could be present.
I believe that the doctrine was ill-conceived in the first place, and that it would have been better if it had never happened. Again it is worth recalling what the second Vatican Council document says about the church: "The church, although she needs human resources to carry out her mission, is not set up to seek earthly glory, but to proclaim, and this by her own example, humility and self-denial."
It is hard to equate the concept of infallibility with humility.
The second illustration of the church being over-concerned with the institution is seen in how it dealt with the issue of contraception. At the Lambeth conference in 1929, Anglicans decided that contraception was permissible in certain circumstances.
This was followed within a year by a sharp response from Pope Pius XI in the form of the encyclical Casti Conubii, which, according to
This was followed within a year by a sharp response from Pope Pius XI in the form of the encyclical Casti Conubii, which, according to Haring, labelled contraception as a crime. Haring had no doubt that this encyclical was inspired more by a desire to contradict the Anglicans than to interpret the message of Christ.
When the issue re-emerged after the second Vatican Council, and Paul VI ignored the recommendation of the large majority of his commission, he was certainly influenced by his fear of being seen to contradict his predecessor.
One pope could not be seen to imply that another one was wrong. It would damage the papacy. This was an illustration of a belief that in my view has caused untold damage for centuries, namely that the church could not be in error.
This unwillingness to admit to mistakes has been one of the biggest obstacles to the mission of the church. The past 40 years have seen the church pay a massive price for allowing its teaching on contraception to be influenced by its desire to shield the institution.
For most of the past few centuries the church has tried, and been successful, in keeping very tight reins on its followers.
The Syllabus of Errors, the Index of Books Forbidden to Catholics, the banning of theologians, are examples of the means used by the church to keep people in submission. In all of this the church was more concerned with its own power and control rather than with the message.
I think Haring put it well when he said: "Liberation is absolutely unthinkable without freedom of speech."
It is because I believe that the Catholic Church has to some extent lost its way that I decided to write Keeping the Faith. I believe that, either the Catholic Church once again puts the liberation of humanity at the centre of its message, or it will become increasingly marginalised and irrelevant.
Tony Flannery, CSSR
Pelt! Pelt! Pelt! Pelt!
SQUIIISH!!!
I arrived at school this morning to a voice mail recording from a reader in Seattle who was irate because of the fact that the comments in this comment box were (1) again dominated by O'Leary and (2) unrelated to
the original post.
I've written under separate cover to O'Leary asking him to (1) LIMIT the number of his comments in any given comment box, and to (2) post a LINK to an earlier comment box whenever he wants to add a comment (in the earlier comment box) relevant to the subject of the earlier post but inappropriate to the subject under discussion in the current comment box.
I know that I mentioned appreciating O'Leary's updates on the Eucharistic Synod, but I can also appreciate the frustration of readers who find such updates and commentary intrusive when unrelated to the original post.
Let's see if we can't tidy up things in these comment boxes a bot with Fr. O'Leary's help.
Concerning the debate at hand: during recent visits to LR, I made it clear to several members of the faculty and administration that cutting the liberal arts curriculum is a sure way to stem any flow of money to the school from many of the school's top graduates (myself included of course). Also, it should be clear that none of us will be sending our children to LR in that circumstance. I am friendly with most of the top grads from roughly 97-03, and I am fairly certain that virtually all of them would agree with me.
The shortsightedness of this whole debacle upsets me. I do not understand why anyone would attend LR if it were to become a primarily professional school. It simply does not make sense to attend a small, private, Lutheran school in a minor economic market that specializes in professional programs. The students who chose to attend LR come because they, or their parents value the unique style of education attainable at a private religious school. That style of education is fundamentally tied to the liberal arts curriculum. If it takes those students five years to graduate, so be it.
Commenting by HaloScan
