What madness! madness madness madness madness madness madness madness madness madness madness madness...
What lunacy! lunacy lunacy lunacy...
"But let us pray for a return to sanity about keeping liturgy sacred and keeping the profane out of the sanctuary."
Amen.
==
I pass no comment on Milan's liturgies, but I note that Vatican II teaches that the Gospel can be luminously proclaimed only in attentive study of and dialogue with the signs of the times. As a teacher of literature, I am very conscious of the need for an ongoing dialogal give-and-take on this front. There is nothing wrong with making the voices of poets heard in churches -- they testify often to the great revelation of the divine in creation which is an essential backdrop to the Gospel, and they put to the Church the questions of modern humanity.
As to Oscar Wilde, he is also the author of a work that many consider to be a spiritual classic -- the "De Profundis" (quoted as a source of spiritual insight by Kitaro Nishida, a philosopher whose name I first heard from Philip Blosser's lips).
"When will "Spirit of Vatican II" liberals learn that the Gospel doesn't need secular 'supplements' to spice it up. The effect, rather, is to water it down, throw a wet towel over it, smother it, and kill it."
I am very upset. What is wrong with us, with THEM? Smothering and killing the gospel is murder, plain and simple. So sad. The "Spirit of Vatican II" liberals, let me inform you, are also known to commit (and push on to others, like it or not!) the grave sin of liturgicide! Strange to say (please excuse), but to me, at times it looks a bit like a 'Jonestown' out there....
Beware!
What insanity! insanity insanity...
==
If these poets and writers were quoted in addition to a clear presentation of the Gospel, then that would be great. (A la Francios Schaeffer). But does anyone in their right mind think that is what is going on?
Francis Schaeffer, if I remember correctly a very distant time when I glanced at his writing, has a rather dour outlook on modern culture. I prefer the model of the Fathers, especially Clement of Alexandria, whose works are bursting with quotes from Greek poets. By the way, St Augustine also has many quotes from secular literature in his writings, and if he is the model followed at Milan not even Schaffer could complain. As to St Ambrose there are whole passages from Plotinus in his sermons, and his De Officiis Ministrorum is a Christian rewrite of Cicero's De Officiis.
"A video installation by English artist Mark Wallinger. It is entitled “Via Dolorosa.” The visitor enters a darkened box with black walls and three benches inside. He sits down and watches, for 18 minutes, scenes of the Passion excerpted from the film “Jesus of Nazareth” by Franco Zeffirelli. "
I can't see anything particularly offensive about this. If it were Mel Gibson's obscene movie I might.
"The audience first listened to selections from the writings of Jewish philosopher and mathematician of the XVII century Baruch Spinoza.
"It then watched a video by Japanese artist Tatsuo Miyajima, entitled “Counter Voice” and based upon the “metaphor according to which each human being has his own rhythm, and rhythm is the force that unifies the universe.” The dual image that marked the entire evening’s exhibition, taken from Miyajima’s video, showed a young woman with her face first immersed in and then raised out of a basin full of gelatinous liquid.
"Finally came the main attraction: the first-ever performance of a work composed for the occasion by one of the leading figures in contemporary music, Karlheinz Stockhausen.
"The composer entrusted to two very young female Dutch harpists the task of “singing the hymn of Pentecost, ‘Veni Creator Spiritus’, while clawing, caressing, striking, plucking, rubbing, and thrusting through their harps, exulting.”
So what is so terrible about all this? Spinoza was an unorthodox Jew but his philosophy is still one of the spiritual treasures of the West and has given inspiration to many Christian thinkers. Stockhausen is one of the greatest composers of our time, and often touches spiritual depths.
"On May 16 the speaker was Ramon Panikkar, theologian and mystic, previously a member of Opus Dei and a favorite disciple of Saint Escrivá de Balaguer, who then became a supporter of theories of dialogue that join Christianity and the Asiatic religions. His contribution was published before the fact in the weekly magazine “L’espresso” under the title “The Gospel according to Gandhi.” "
Panikkar is a Roman Catholic priest in good and a great theologian. Is leaving Opus Dei now the Mark of the Beast? The author is showing grievous bias.
"On March 10, the prior of the monastery of Bose, Enzo Bianchi, was called upon to inaugurate the program of Lenten preaching. He proposed that Christians everywhere should accept silent martyrdom, like the Trappist monks killed in Algeria in 1996." Sounds like Jesus, no?
"the cathedral hosted two of the following events in the cycle: a reading from the writings of the martyred Algerian monks, and a concert dedicated to Saint Francis by singer-songwriter Angelo Branduardi." Sounds great to me.
"The thesis supported by the prior of Bose raised protests from the Milan chapter of the Movement for Life, headed by Paolo Sorbi." Some right-wing group?
"Massimo Cacciari: in addition to being the mayor of Venice, he is a “nonbelieving” philosopher like others who in past years have taken part in meetings promoted by cardinal Martini under the title of “Nonbelievers at the pulpit.” Cacciari spoke in glowing terms of living without faith and without certainty. Monsignor Ravasi again spoke to balance his statements a bit. " Americans may still think of non-believers as exotic weirdos, but in Europe we have long learned to dialogue with them.
"The stated intent of the three evenings was to meditate upon the “last words of Christ on the cross.” But instead of the texts of the four Gospels, the audience gathered in the cathedral heard famous intellectuals and actors read pages from authors like Oscar Wilde, Marguerite Yourcenar, Pier Paolo Pasolini, and Jack Kerouac." The texts of the 4 gospels provide the basis, no doubt, on which these meditations were superimposed -- note that we are not dealing with a liturgy here but with a reflection circle. Pasolini made the most deeply evangelical Jesus-film, Wilde wrote "De Profundis", no doubt the other two have their Christ-moments as well.
"Everything was accompanied by music and video. The singers included Alice, winner at the music festival of Sanremo in 1981. The video artists included Bill Viola and Michiel van Bakel. The videos were projected on an immense screen that covered the entire wall on the other side of the front entrance to the Duomo. At the base of the screen was a stage for the musicians and singers." So? Is this an esthetic reactionary or a sensation-mongering journalist?
"To permit the public to admire the “great multimedia event,” the benches occupying the cathedral’s central nave had all been turned toward the entrance, with their backs turned to the main altar. But the altar wasn’t even visible anymore, obstructed by a framework holding the reflectors, projectors, and light and sound controls." Thousands of concerts, carol services and dramas are held in churches all over Europe and nit-pickers can also make such carping criticism.
"Cardinal Martini. In the summer of 1997, at the culminating moment of the funeral for the stylist Gianni Versace, which was broadcast worldwide, a piano stood at the center of the Milan cathedral. And Elton John played and sang “Candle in the Wind.” " So? Was Diana's funeral then also a pagan even in the eyes of this Martini-hater?
_
Sandro Magister on Martini makes sad reading -- this is a hate-filled panicky reactionary smearing one of the greatest churchmen of our time:
ROMA, April 28, 2006 – At a Vatican accustomed to the crystal-clear preaching of pope Joseph Ratzinger, with the truth of heavenly and earthly things carved out neatly each time with a fine chisel, the ten pages of doubts, hypotheses, and “gray areas” of cardinal Carlo Maria Martini in dialogue with bioethicist Ignazio Marino published in last week’s edition of “L’espresso” came like the MANIFESTO OF AN ANTIPOPE.
There are also those in the Church’s hierarchy who see a prophet in Martini for the same reasons. Luigi Bettazzi, one of the living bishops who participated in Vatican Council II, says: “Martini knows that the right time has come to say the things he has said. Before the Council, the primary end of Christian marriage was procreation. But today, the official doctrine of the Church puts love in the first place. It’s the same for bioethics. Martini has cleared the way, and the change will come. The Christian clergy and people are already on his side. They are learning from him how to connect faith with practical life.”
The congregation is studying a document on condom use. Benedict XVI personally put it on the agenda months ago, after some of the cardinals had admitted the use of condoms in a concrete case: as protection from a spouse sick with AIDS. Statements to this effect were made by the archbishops of Bruxelles, Godfried Danneels, and of Westminster, Cormac Murphy-O’Connor, and the curia cardinals Javier Lozano Barragán, president of the pontifical council for the pastoral care of the sick, and Georges Cottier, the official theologian of the pontifical household with John Paul II. Now Martini has joined them.
“The condom is a false solution,” says a CDF official. “In the ABC’s of the battle against AIDS – Abstinence, Be faithful, Condom – the first two of these, chastity and marital fidelity, are valid for the Church. But not the third. The C should not stand for Condom, but for Cure, a cure for the illness. The Church’s public teaching and action should back this point. The concrete cases, understanding, and compassion are for the confessor and the missionary.”
In effect, even cardinal Martini concurred in “L’espresso” that it is not up to the Church authorities to support condom use publicly, because of “the risk of promoting an irresponsible attitude.” But the remarks that irritated the Church’s leadership most are others. “All you have to do is read the Catechism of the Catholic Church to identify the firm points from which Martini departs,” says the official of the congregation for the doctrine of the faith.
One of these first points is complete respect for every human life “from conception,” from its very first moments.
It was to this earliest phase that the Pontifical Academy for Life dedicated a study congress last February 27-28, with scientists from all the c
It was to this earliest phase that the Pontifical Academy for Life dedicated a study congress last February 27-28, with scientists from all the continents meeting at the Vatican. The final document said that “the moment that marks the beginning of the existence of a new human being is represented by the penetration of the spermatozoon into the oocyte.” Benedict XVI visited the congress participants, and told them that “the love of God does not distinguish between the newly conceived child still in his mother’s womb and the baby, or the young person, or the mature or elderly person. He does not distinguish, because in each one of them he sees the imprint of his own image and likeness. This boundless and almost incomprehensible love of God for man reveals the extent to which the human person is worthy of being loved for his own sake, regardless of any other consideration: intelligence, beauty, youth, or physical well-being.”
The fact that cardinal Martini ignored all of this in “L’espresso,” and even cleared the way for the use of the oocyte in the first hours after fertilization, maintaining that here “no sign of an individually distinguishable life yet appears,” was seen as an act of surrender to what John Paul II defined as the modern “culture of death.”
So far, very few of the high-level Church officials have responded to Martini publicly. Bishop Elio Sgreccia, president of the Academy for Life and the top Vatican bioethicist, declared that “at the Vatican, we do not consider it necessary make a controversy out of something that does not merit it.” He acknowledged Martini’s “pastoral and evangelical inspiration,” but he also criticized him, apart from his approving the use of the oocyte just after fertilization, for his admitting artificial fertilization as permissible, overlooking the fact that “the gift of self in the conjugal act” is an essential element of the procreative union of the spouses, without which it loses its “anthropological completeness.”
But the sparks are flying in private. And to retrace the criticisms that cardinals and bishops are directing against Martini, but do not want to propose personally and out loud, one must follow a somewhat tortuous path.
There is an editorialist for “Avvenire,” for example, Lucetta Scaraffia, an historian and feminist who has followed bioethics for years: she charges Martini with addressing problems of life and death that are central in our time “with the reductionist and casuist mode of reasoning that has represented the negative stereotype of the Jesuits since Pascal’s time.”
PASCAL! Les Provinciales is not the foundation of Catholic ethics. And Lucetta has no right to speak for the Italian bishops.
Paolo Sorbi [THE CRITIC OF THE MILAN EVENTS ABOVE], a sociologist, former activist in the social upheavals of 1968, former militant member of the communist party, and today president of the Movement for Life in Milan, Martini’s former archdiocese, sees in the text published
Paolo Sorbi [THE CRITIC OF THE MILAN EVENTS ABOVE], a sociologist, former activist in the social upheavals of 1968, former militant member of the communist party, and today president of the Movement for Life in Milan, Martini’s former archdiocese, sees in the text published in “L’espresso” the sign of “a surrender to modernity, as if it had already won.”
And he issues this invitation to the cardinal: “Come and spend two days in a Help Center for Life. You will be amazed at seeing how many women, most of them immigrants, find a happy maternity and life, supported by the generosity of so many volunteers. But how does the cardinal think that the June 12, 2005 referendum on artificial fertilization was defeated in Italy? With an enormous popular consensus for life, built up over twenty years and finally brought to light. The Italian model of the new evangelization also lies here.”
Wishful thinking, perhaps?
'Thousands of concerts, carol services and dramas are held in churches all over Europe ...'
"Spirit of Vatican II" of course sees this as a good thing.
IS it a good thing? That is the question.
Outside of the liturgy, one must assume that Jesus Christ remains eucharistically present somewhere in the Duomo of Milan. Amid the avante garde performance art and trendy philosophical lectures, how much is he adored? Is he even noticed?
I think when concerts are held in churches the eucharist is removed (at last that is what I thought when I attended concerts in St Germain des Pres for example). I would not be quick to judge that the Christians in Milan lack reverence for the reserved sacrament. I once concelebrated Mass with Cardinal Martini twice -- in a Divine Word Missionaries house in Nagoya, and in the Jesuit study house in Jerusalem -- he is very devout and gave inspired little sermons on both occasions -- one on "God is light" and the other on "the love of Christ embraces us" (with reference to God's love for Japan -- it was the feast of Ignatius Loyola).
"As I stood on Elea and looked out to sea I thought of Parmenides and the sea of Being that embraces all beings; today I think of the sea of Christ's love embracing Japan".
One of the statements of Card. Martini that those conservative communities in Milan disliked very much was that the Church should preserve what was true and valid in the teaching of Marx. As we see the devastation wrought by uncontrolled capitalism today, can it be denied that the Cardinal's words were prophetic?
There will be a revival of Marxist thought shortly -- as the world climbs out of an epoch of great political obtuseness.
Actually it sounds wonderful a Church being at the intellectual heart of a community and what a venue. The Zeffirelli is georgous as is Pasolini.
And I am always fond of a Martini or two even though he is wrong on Marxism.
However Fr. O’Leary goes a bridge too far with this:
“Stockhausen is one of the greatest composers of our time, and often touches spiritual depths”
http://www.stockhausen.org/
stock...multimedia.html
I rest my case.
Panikkar and Martini are relativists, along with their fellow traveller Cardinal Tettamanzi. This display is not a fitting example of the New Evangelization, but a surrender to Postmodernity and a desecration of what is holy and sacred. Moreover, it is superficial and banal, which is, I guess, a fitting definition of postmodernity.
The difference is simple: the Church Fathers and all the venerable orthodox exemplars of Catholic tradition knew the difference between the Gospel and Fool's Gold. The example represented by Milan and all its imitators and those appraised and approved for similar reasons are in the hands of alchemists.
As I said, if these poets and writers were quoted in addition to a clear presentation of the Gospel, or if any of the Catholic participants indicated that they even understood the Gospel, it would be one thing. To wit: I bet this expensive presentation mentions little if anything about personal sin.
Fr. O'Leary, my question does not suggest that your approval of the Milan spectacle implies that you approve of desecration. I believe that you disapprove of desecration. I just want to understand your theological grounds.
How odd. My last two comments were somehow posted out of sequence. The one that is time-stamped 9:35am ("Father O'Leary, my question ...") was actually posted at 10:38am, and vice versa. The two comments should be read in reverse sequence, beginning with "Good grief ...".
Blast you, HaloScan!
'I think when concerts are held in churches the eucharist is removed (at last that is what I thought when I attended concerts in St Germain des Pres for example). I would not be quick to judge that the Christians in Milan lack reverence for the reserved sacrament.'
Good grief. If the Eucharist is removed to make room for concerts and avant garde performance art, that speaks VOLUMES about the lack of reverence in Milan, the good Cardinal's "inspired little sermons" notwithstanding.
Fr. O'Leary, you have said that you unreservedly condemn acts of desecration of the Sacred Host. On what grounds, precisely, do you condemn such blasephemous acts?
'Actually it sounds wonderful a Church being at the intellectual heart of a community and what a venue ..'
The Church as the People of God should indeed be "at the intellectual heart of a community" -- yet the Church building is a place of worship, not a "venue" of intellectual exchange. To paraphrase our Lord: "Stop making my Father's house a marketplace of ideas!"
It is sad to think that the Sacred Host is removed to make room for "dialogue" with unbelievers. To this point, I was just re-reading Papa Ratzi's essay "The Reservation of the Blessed Sacrament" (in the Spirit of the Liturgy); then-Cardinal Ratzinger writes: 'A church without the Eucharistic Presence is somehow dead, even when it invites people to pray.'
Surely a church in which the Eucharistic Presence of our Lord is removed so as to be filled with the vain displays of postmodernism is dead indeed.
HaloScan did it again! As I type this comment, there is no telling how it will actually be published. But I suspect that it will post prior to my original comment (which begins with a quote from O'Leary followed by "Good grief ..."); for some reason the latter is destined to perpetually appear to be my most recently posted comment. How extremely weird. Anyway, hopefully the gist of my thought will be clear enough.
The Eucharist is the heart of the Church. The desacralization of the Duomo of Milan -- which may or may not have involved the actual removal of the Blessed Sacrament -- is an attack upon the heart of the Church. The Cardinal of Milan seems to know exactly what he is doing, as do his fellow travelers.
Ah ... again, we are diverted to a discussion about homosexuality. How interesting.
Yes, how wonderful it is to ignore (or remove) the Eucharistic Presence of our Lord and use our churches as a "venue" for "dialogue" with unbelievers on the advantages of postmodern biblical hermeneutics and the intrinsic goodness of homosexual acts.
HaloScan is up to his tricks again. My comment and Atiyah's have been mis-sequenced.
Interestingly Dr Blosser blogged with approval that thoroughly pre post-modern cleric Anglican Arch Bishop of Sydney Australia, Peter Jensen and his flying visit to New Zealand. He is an exemplar of that venerable tradition of comprehensively slaying these new fangled ideas on homosexuality along with all other liberal conceits and other fads.
Well take a look at this Dr Blosser – it is even more delectable when listening to the interview of course but the transcript is quite good. The Arch Bishop (an intellectual lion) is interview along with Australian High Court Justice Michael Kirby:
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/talks/8...es/
s1657625.htm
But this is the great bit when a rattled Arch Bishop asks the reporter to turn off her recorder.
Toni Hassan: What sort of questions would you like?
Peter Jensen: Turn it off.
Toni Hassan: You want me to turn it off?
Peter Jensen: Yes.
Toni Hassan: After some time, we agreed to re-start the recording. If anything to clarify how one of Australia’s pre-eminent Christian leaders believes homosexual practice is forbidden in the Bible.
My goodness me….. I guess flying visits to New Zealander where no one takes any interest in your position are easier than answering reporter’s questions.
It's "give us Barabbas" all over again.
As we have seen throughout our discussions of the "sacramental hermeneutics of fittingness", there are many ways to dishonor our Lord in the Eucharist. Outright attacks upon the Eucharistic Presence a'la ACT-UP are rare. More subtle and insidious is the approach preferred by Cardinal Martini, i.e., turning our Father's house into a marketplace of ideas.
In another combox, Chris made reference to Mary Magdelene's lament: "They have taken the body of my Lord and I do not know where they have put him." How poignent those words, when we consider how the Eucharistic Presence of our Lord is quitely removed from churches to make room for the latest postmodern performance.
Perhaps those who make preparations for performances at the Duomo think that they are being reverent by removing the Eucharist (if that is indeed what they do). If so, they overlook the larger irreverence of displacing the sacred with the profane.
Martini and Tettamanzi sweatily humping the leg of modern culture -- a perfect image of the fruit of "engagement".
Now showing at the Duomo: a Robert Mapplethorpe retrospective, enhanced with the liturgical stylings of transvestite cabaret dancers performing around the altar stripped bare.
Dave, what on earth are you raving about?
I agree that Stockhausen is wacky -- remember his comment on 9/11.
Still the author of Gruppen and Stimmen is a great composer, isn't he? And spiritual in a way useful to liturgists, tuned into the Cosmos. And I have listened to part of that immense neo-Wagnerian monstrosity Licht -- some of it is quite awesome.
Spirit of Vatican II:
"Martini and Tettamanzi sweatily humping the leg of modern culture -- a perfect image of the fruit of "engagement""
HAHAHAHA I laughed out loud ...that is very good very droll.
Dave:
Mapplethorpe????? Had to google it to know what you are talking about - it says a lot about you actually.
Can't see what's getting the Radtrad dander up about the programme. I am sure they still do the Ambrosian Rite there - what an utterly charming and civilised place to be Catholic. Such confidence and vitality.
For your enjoyment Dave:
http://www.unavoce.org/
ambrosian..._rite_milan.htm
'... it says a lot about you actually.'
Rather presumptuous of you, Atiyah. You don't even know me.
All the same, thanks for the images of the Ambrosian Rite. Nice to see. Throws into even sharper relief the desacralization of the cathedral outside of Mass.
Fr. O'Leary -- what am I raving about? Well, for starters ...
'But the altar wasn’t even visible anymore, obstructed by a framework holding the reflectors, projectors, and light and sound controls.'
It sounds like Martini and his cohorts have turned a beautiful cathederal into a postmodern circus tent.
What am I raving about? The same can be asked of you when we get on the subject of homosexuality. I guess we all have our hobby horses.
Mapplethorpe is the "artist" who photographed a crucifix in a jar of urine. Ok, so my example is hyperbolic. Or is it? When a Catholic cathederal can be turned into a postmodern performance space in which to explore the tensions of belief and unbelief ... what can we expect next???
Keep liturgy sacred! Keep the profane out of the sanctuary!
That is surely not the spirit of Vatican II.
Calling for "an even more radical adaptation of the liturgy" in some places, the Council asks "what elements from the traditions and cultures of individual peoples might appropriately be admitted into divine worship".
In the present case, we are dealing not with liturgy but with paraliturgical events, or perhaps events that do not come under the heading of liturgy at all, so in that case obviously there is a far wider range of cultural input that can be drawn on.
Mapplethorpe is a red-herring, a tabloidish exaggeration.
"Postmodern culture" simply means the culture of the people of today. Note that the Italian event involves high culture -- and harks back to older culture -- Wilde, Pasolini, Kerouac are in no sense postmodern. I suspect that in the less culturally privileged countries of the English speaking world such an embrace of high culture would be impossible -- instead junky pop music and hollywood garbage would flood the available space -- indeed I do believe that lunatic nuns were taking kids en masse to see Mel Gibson's sadomasochistic schlock movie.
"The altar wasn't even visible" -- but it has always been common for the altar to be hidden when performances of Handel's Messiah or carol services are put on in churches. The choir fills the sanctuary. The Blessed Sacrament is removed to a chapel on such occasions I believe. I remember singing (only once in my life, alas) in Faure's Requiem in Maynooth College Chapel, and I am pretty sure the Eucharist was not in the tabernacle behind our backs. Why should we imagine that the stewards of San Ambrogio are less sensitive in such matters than the simple clergy of Ireland?
Asking unbelievers to speak in a Cathedral is no big deal for Europeans. We have lived with articulate unbelief since 1700 and we are well able to recognize the nobility of unbelievers like Camus for example. But of course American undergrads are capable of that too.
"An invitation to speak in the cathedral to introduce the cycle dedicated to the book of Job was extended to professor Massimo Cacciari: in addition to being the mayor of Venice, he is a “nonbelieving” philosopher like others who in past years have taken part in meetings promoted by cardinal Martini under the title of “Nonbelievers at the pulpit.” Cacciari spoke in glowing terms of living without faith and without certainty. Monsignor Ravasi again spoke to balance his statements a bit."
I once saw a TV program (in 1973 or so) where a secular woman was invited to speak at an Anglican service and was then roundly -- and rudely -- reprimanded by the Vicar for her sexual liberalism. In the present case also, in the very apt context of a meditation on Job, the "unbelieving" speaker was replied to from a Christian viewpoint -- I hope with more respect and courtesy than that vicar showed.
On Martini and unbelievers, see http://www.thetablet.co.uk/cgi-b...gi/tablet-
00148
"Bruno Forte’s book [Trinity for Unbelievers] takes the discussion to a more poetic level. Somewhat in the spirit of the public dialogues that Cardinal Martini, Archbishop of Milan, has been having with unbelievers since 1987, Trinità per atei aims to forge a new language for Trinitarian faith. Besides being in the form of an imaginary dialogue, it includes responses from distinguished unbelievers, for instance, Massimo Cacciari, the philosopher and recently re-elected mayor of Venice. Just as Forte’s approach is exploratory, Cacciari’s is more like a fellow questioner than an opponent. His tone could not be more different from Marx, Freud and Company."
Bruno Forte preached a retreat for John Paul II and was made Archbishop of Naples.
Michael Paul Gallagher, SJ, is to the forefront in the dialogue with contemporary culture (he was in the Vatican Secretariate for this).
So it looks as if in attacking Martini you are attacking the Vatican as well, and of course
"But there is an alternative way, dimly envisaged by Vatican II. This is the way of dialogue, which dares to expose the Gospel to the questions of contemporary culture. The literature of Modernism has marked out the space and defined the parameters of a spiritual quest that unites believers and unbelievers, yielding a lingua franca more comprehensible to literate adults than any sacred scripture. Kafka, Proust, Rilke, Woolf, Char and Celan are guides to the life of the spirit, and their works conceal the key to a contemporary unlocking of the Gospel."
http://
josephsoleary.typepad.com...piritual_u.html
I take your points, Fr. O'Leary, and I admit going overboard with my reference to Mapplethorpe.
I certainly do not oppose dialogue with unbelievers (my conversion to Catholicism coincided with graduate studies in literature, including the likes of Camus, Rilke, Mann, etc.), nor do I necessarily oppose inviting non-believers to speak in our churches. (As a professor of literature, you are probably familiar with Bernanos' wonderful "Sermon by an Agnostic".)
I also appreciate your point about the traditional practice of removing the Eucharist to a chapel for performances of Handel's Messiah or other sacred music. Yet having a choir fill the sanctuary is a FAR CRY from obscuring the altar with 'a framework holding the reflectors, projectors, and light and sound controls.' Can you not discern the difference?
Also, "postmodernism" is more than "the culture of today's people". Postmodernism as a philosophical and political posture tends to embrace unbelief as an end in itself. I do not consider postmodernism in that sense to be an appropriate element to introduce into the liturgy or even paraliturgical events in our churches.
Last point: I think that The Passion of the Christ is a beautiful film. Sorry that you see it as a "sadomasochistic schlock movie". You are welcome to your opinion. It's just a film.
'Keep liturgy sacred! Keep the profane out of the sanctuary!
'That is surely not the spirit of Vatican II.'
Well, to be sure, it is not the "Spirit of Vatican II", a.k.a., Fr. Joseph O'Leary.
The question is, what does the SPIRIT OF GOD say through the actual documents of the Second Vatican Council?
Just for the record, Robert Mapplethorpe was not responsible for "Piss Christ", which featured a crucifix submerged in a jar of urine.
Mapplethorpe was, however, a photographic artist of the most exquisite style and verve, whose works included photographs of anuses with a variety of unlikely objects (bullwhips, nightsticks, hoses, etc) protruding from them. Art of such high style and luminous spirituality soon made Mapplethorpe the toast of art critics of style and verve across the land, and it is somewhat surprising that our impeccable Spirit deprecates his achievement as "tabloidish exaggeration".
My apologies to Professor Blosser for the length of this comment. If I am breaking Da Rulz, I accept whatever consequences are forthcoming. I consider it well worth the risk.
From SACROSANCTUM CONCILIUM:
‘From [the nature of the liturgy as an exercise of the priestly office of Jesus Christ] it follows that every liturgical celebration, because it is an action of Christ the priest and of His Body which is the Church, is a sacred action surpassing all others; no other action of the Church can equal its efficacy by the same title and to the same degree.’ (7)
‘[T]he liturgy is the summit toward which the activity of the Church is directed; at the same time it is the font from which all her power flows. For the aim and object of apostolic works is that all who are made sons of God by faith and baptism should come together to praise God in the midst of His Church, to take part in the sacrifice, and to eat the Lord's supper.’ (10) (Surely the “summit toward which the activity of the Church is directed” should be free of profane elements and its sacredness preserved?)
‘Because the sermon is part of the liturgical service, the best place for it is to be indicated even in the rubrics, as far as the nature of the rite will allow; the ministry of preaching is to be fulfilled with exactitude and fidelity. The sermon, moreover, should draw its content mainly from scriptural and liturgical sources, and its character should be that of a proclamation of God's wonderful works in the history of salvation, the mystery of Christ, ever made present and active within us, especially in the celebration of the liturgy.’ (35)
[To be continued ...]
[Continued ...]
‘Even in the liturgy, the Church has no wish to impose a rigid uniformity in matters which do not implicate the faith or the good of the whole community; rather does she respect and foster the genius and talents of the various races and peoples. Anything in these peoples' way of life which is not indissolubly bound up with superstition and error she studies with sympathy and, if possible, preserves intact. Sometimes in fact she admits such things into the liturgy itself, so long as they harmonize with its true and authentic spirit.’ (37) (What is the true and authentic spirit of the liturgy? See the passage quoted above: ‘[B]ecause it is an action of Christ the priest and of His Body which is the Church, [the liturgy] is a SACRED ACTION SURPASSING ALL OTHERS …’ (emphasis added))
‘In some places and circumstances, however, an even more radical adaptation of the liturgy is needed, and this entails greater difficulties. Wherefore:
‘1) The competent territorial ecclesiastical authority mentioned in Art. 22, 2, must, in this matter, carefully and prudently consider which elements from the traditions and culture of individual peoples might appropriately be admitted into divine worship. Adaptations which are judged to be useful or necessary should when be submitted to the Apostolic See, by whose consent they may be introduced.
‘2) To ensure that adaptations may be made with all the circumspection which they demand, the Apostolic See will grant power to this same territorial ecclesiastical authority to permit and to direct, as the case requires, the necessary preliminary experiments over a determined period of time among certain groups suited for the purpose.
3) Because liturgical laws often involve special difficulties with respect to adaptation, particularly in mission lands, men who are experts in these matters must be employed to formulate them.’ (40) (In other words, the sacredness of the liturgy requires that cultural adaptations be made only upon careful discernment and exhaustive deliberation.)
[To be continued ...]
[Continued ...]
‘[S]acred music is to be considered the more holy in proportion as it is more closely connected with the liturgical action, whether it adds delight to prayer, fosters unity of minds, or confers greater solemnity upon the sacred rites. But the Church approves of all forms of true art having the needed qualities, and admits them into divine worship.’ (112) (Among the “needed qualities” of musical art at the service of the liturgy is that it “confers greater solemnity upon the sacred rites”.)
‘Holy Mother Church has therefore always been the friend of the fine arts and has ever sought their noble help, with the special aim that all things set apart for use in divine worship should be truly worthy, becoming, and beautiful, signs and symbols of the supernatural world, and for this purpose she has trained artists. In fact, the Church has, with good reason, always reserved to herself the right to pass judgment upon the arts, deciding which of the works of artists are in accordance with faith, piety, and cherished traditional laws, and thereby fitted for sacred use.
‘The Church has been particularly careful to see that sacred furnishings should worthily and beautifully serve the dignity of worship, and has admitted changes in materials, style, or ornamentation prompted by the progress of the technical arts with he passage of time.’ (122)
‘The art of our own days, coming from every race and region, shall also be given free scope in the Church, provided that it adorns the sacred buildings and holy rites with due reverence and honor; thereby it is enabled to contribute its own voice to that wonderful chorus of praise in honor of the Catholic faith sung by great men in times gone by. …
‘Let bishops carefully remove from the house of God and from other sacred places those works of artists which are repugnant to faith, morals, and Christian piety, and which offend true religious sense either by depraved forms or by lack of artistic worth, mediocrity and pretense.’ (124)
Thus speaks the Spirit of God through the documents of the Sacred Council. It is most decidedly NOT the voice of our resident “Spirit of Vatican II”, which approves the intrusion of the profane upon the sacred. What again does the latter spirit speak concerning the sacred and profane in things liturgical? Here are his words if we need reminding:
‘Keep liturgy sacred! Keep the profane out of the sanctuary!
That is surely not the spirit of Vatican II.’
Sed contra, it most surely IS the TRUE Spirit of Vatican II.
'Let bishops carefully remove from the house of God and from other sacred places those works of artists which are repugnant to faith, morals, and Christian piety, and which offend true religious sense either by depraved forms or by lack of artistic worth, mediocrity and pretense.' (Sacrosanctum Concilium, 124)
'The dual image that marked the entire evening's exhibition [at the Duomo of Milan], taken from Miyajima's video, showed a young woman with her face first immersed in and then raised out of a basin full of gelatinous liquid.' (Sandro Magister)
Need we say more?
Dave:
Just to play devil's advocate for a second, if
‘Keep liturgy sacred! Keep the profane out of the sanctuary!
describes the true spirit of the council, why is there such a mess around us? Or, perhaps has the council's goal been achieved: have we kept the liturgy sacred and what is profane out of the sanctuary [ Alarming conclusions from this last thought!]
Chris
Martini and Tettamanzi sweatily humping the leg of modern culture -- a perfect image of the fruit of "engagement".
"Spritz," your roisting-doisting dog, I'm not sure how much more can be said. In fact, I'm not sure if anything CAN be said at all after this, which may set the record for inducing the single longest concatenationous ("BREATHE NOW OR DIE!") fit of uncontrollable diaphram spasms that I have ever witnessed.
Keep liturgy sacred! Keep the profane out of the sanctuary!
That is surely not the spirit of Vatican II.
It's surely not YOUR spirit, "Spirit." But that would be begging the question on your part, wouldn't it. Of course the sanctuary is to exclude the profane, which is related to its definition. Removing the altar rails mentally removed the reminders in people's minds of those boundaries, such that they rarely remember that a distinction exists--not merely within church architecture, forsooth, but in reality. The act of marriage is no longer held to be sacred but dragged into the marketplace where, desacrated by pedestrians who descry nothing holy therein, it has become mere 'sex' for leisure and recreation. What you have in Milan is a reverse version of that, where that which is pedestrian is dragged into the sanctuary, as you had with the harlot carried on a litter into Notre Dame during the French Revolution, or, earlier still, Antiochus Epiphanes insinuating the Abomination of Desolation into the Temple of Jerusalem. Only there are few now capable even of perceiving what that such abomination means.
We have lived with articulate unbelief since 1700 and we are well able to recognize the nobility of unbelievers like Camus for example. But of course American undergrads are capable of that too.
Oh, get down off that pompous popemobile and down among the rest of us where you belong, Father! Who of us doesn't recognize and appreciate the "nobility of unbelievers like Camus"? (It is beside the point that he may well have converted before his death, by several reliable accounts.)
The POINT is that 'boundaries' are being violated, as anyone with an ounce of brains recognizes. This has nothing to do with recognizing or not recognizing the "nobility of unbelievers." It has everything to do with double standards -- with being willing to tolerate all sorts of desacration and defamation and profanation of one's own relition which one wouldn't dream of suggesting to any Sunnis, Shiites, Orthodox Jews, Soka Gakkai Buddhists, Sikhs, Shinto Yama Bushis, Rinzai Zen Buddhists, or Lakota Medicine Men.
When the Church forgets the Gospel and ceases to proclaim it, the words that sound forth from her pulpits will no more than echo the din from the public marketplace, the forum, the bathhouses and brothels. Welcome home, Fr. O'Leary.
Soka Gakkai and Rinzai Zen certainly dialogue with unbelievers etc. with no problem. They also make much of Christians. As a Catholic priest I have been welcome to take part in meditation, sutra chanting and other activities such as calligraphy in a temple meditative setting (I brushed a wobbly straight line). Is the Catholic Church supposed, then, to be the ONLY organization that cannot be ecumenical? I have a Jesuit colleague who spends much of his time with the Yamabushi, sharing their ascetic exercises, and no one pours scurrilous insults on his head for this.
Please notice that Sacred and Profane are both "sacred" categories. Bringing the Secular world into the church has nothing to do with Abominations of Desolation; rather, it has to do with the Incarnation and with reading the Signs of the Times in the
'Let bishops carefully remove from the house of God and from other sacred places those works of artists which are repugnant to faith, morals, and Christian piety, and which offend true religious sense either by depraved forms or by lack of artistic worth, mediocrity and pretense.' (Sacrosanctum Concilium, 124)
'The dual image that marked the entire evening's exhibition [at the Duomo of Milan], taken from Miyajima's video, showed a young woman with her face first immersed in and then raised out of a basin full of gelatinous liquid.' (Sandro Magister)
1. How can you judge a work of art you have never seen, on the basis of a clearly prejudiced account?
2. If you are so certain that the Duomo clergy have made an esthetic and theological error, at least it is a temporary one. And that is only one corner of the events being attacked.
3. Application of the Council's ideas to the churches of Rome or of Latin America has been resisted by the faithful. In the beautiful churches of Buenos Aires, for instance, one's esthetic and theological sensibility is assaulted at every turn by quite HORRIBLE paintings. If the Bishops, anxious to comply with Vatican II, attempted to remove them the would meet fierce popular resistance, I gather.
4. Dave quotes the Council as saying that "the art of our day should be given free scope in the Church". If the Duomo event -- with its rather safe choice of artists -- arouses such ire, I wonder what role you would allow the art of our day? And the Duomo event was not even a liturgy!
5. Actually, I agree that I misstated in saying the keeping the profane out of the sanctuary is contrary to Vatican II. By definition the profane is the anti-sacred (and is itself a sacral category). What I should have said is that keeping the secular world out of the church is contrary to Vatican II. My confusion was caused by my understanding of what pb seemed to be saying -- that modern voices like those of Mayor Cacciari or Stockhausen have no place in the House of God. (In the case of a non-liturgical event, the sanctuary is not functioning as sanctuary is it?)
'(In the case of a non-liturgical event, the sanctuary is not functioning as sanctuary is it?)'
Interesting question. Is the House of God a neutral container that can hold the real presence of the Lord one day and a multi-media art exhibit the next?
'[T]he liturgy is the summit toward which the activity of the Church is directed ...' (Sacrosanctum Concilium, 10) To answer your question, Fr. O'Leary, the sanctuary should always function as a sanctuary. Our church buildings should NEVER be turned into mere "venues" of intellectual exchange (a marketplace of ideas). The presence of the Lord should NEVER be removed to make room for pretentious, self-glorifying "dialogue" with the spirit of the age.
I agree entirely that a Church should never be used for "pretentious, self-glorifying dialogue with the spirit of the age" or a mere "marketplace of ideas".
But is that what Cardinal Martini had in mind? Even reading the anti-Martini sources pb is drawing on, it is clear that something much more evangelical was involved.
Soka Gakkai and Rinzai Zen certainly dialogue with unbelievers etc. with no problem.
This misses the point, my friend, which is not about dialogue or contact or encounter. As I call to witness this blog, none of us here have any kind of problem with that. The problem is the oblivion of identity, loss of sense of boundaries, as if a priest were to invite the neighbor's wife or gay partner into his bedroom to get better acquainted.
How can you judge a work of art you have never seen, on the basis of a clearly prejudiced account?
If you talking about Tatsuo Miyajima's work, I'm familiar with the genre, though the question is beside the point. The point is that the clerical authorities at the cathedral were officially soliciting art in the category of antithetical to the Christian, as an agent of avant garde provocation. If it's pedegogy, as you suggest, it belongs somewhere other than where they've put it.
What I should have said is that keeping the secular world out of the church is contrary to Vatican II. My confusion was caused by my understanding of what pb seemed to be saying -- that modern voices like those of Mayor Cacciari or Stockhausen have no place in the House of God.
Indeed. They have ample place in the minds of Catholics, who ought to familiarize themselves with their work, as you well suggest. But they have no place, indeed, in the House of God, any more than your neighbor's wife or gay partner belongs in your bedroom.
I did not pick up that anti-Christian art was solicited -- could you give a quote for this?
Maybe Soka Gakkai and Rinzai Zen are less nervous about losing their identity than Catholics are? At least that's the way you make it sound.
I don't see where you draw the line between what you call sacred and what you call profane. For instance, if someone plays a non-sacred piece of music by Bach on the organ at Mass, no one would object (I hope). If a meditative piece by Toru Takemitsu were played, would that be unacceptable?
Since the events you are lambasting are not exactly liturgical, I presume the criteria for acceptability are broader -- again could you clarify what they are?
And what is this "genre" to which the Japanese artist belongs? The symbolism as reported in your posting could be baptismal.
Would you accept that in a certain context -- a sort of think-in cum pray-in -- a Christian (of church-hosted ecumenical) group could suitably listen together, in church, to a Beethoven quartet adagio?
In the chapel of the Irish College, Paris (now the Centre Culturel Irlandais), concerts are frequently held. Again I am sure the Blessed Sacrament is removed -- at least I always presumed this to be the case, and if it were not I am sure many of those present would genuflect. On one occasion I heard op. 59, 2 -- one of the most spiritual of the quartets right up among the players! They were in the sanctuary, I in the foremost pew.
And are you not being OTT in invoking the Abomination of Desolation for well-intentioned religious activities in one of the world's most vibrant and respected dioceses (the diocese of Paul VI's incandescent preaching and Martini's great biblical catechesis)?
Incandescent preaching?
Martini's great biblical catechesis?
Fascinating combox on this topic at Open Book:
http://amywelborn.typepad.com/
op...o.html#comments
'Even reading the anti-Martini sources pb is drawing on, it is clear that something much more evangelical was involved.'
You've got to be kidding.
The intent of the "new evangelization" is to use contemporary media to clearly communicate the gospel message to a wide and diverse audience. Clear communication is the very antithesis of postmodernism, the primary aim of which is to obscure the message (Wallinger's video, case in point) and confuse the audience. Based on Magister’s descriptive report, I perceive little in the way of evangelization at the Duomo exhibit – just a lot of postmodernist posturing and self-indulgence.
'Is the Catholic Church supposed, then, to be the ONLY organization that cannot be ecumenical?'
That is really the nub of the issue, isn't it? The spirit of the age is scandalized by the "absolutism" of the Catholic Church and apostolic Christianity, which is grounded in the absolute claim of Jesus himself: "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." It seems that certain Catholic prelates are more interested in pleasing the spirit of the age than in proclaiming the truth that Jesus Christ is Lord. Turning the Duomo of Milan into a postmodernist marketplace of ideas appears to be Cardinal Martini's way of pinching a bit of incense at the altar of "dialogue" with unbelief.
Apropos of "dialogue" with unbelievers, see Pope Benedict's gloss on John 12:23-24 in his recent catechesis on the Apostle Andrew:
'What do these words mean in this context? Jesus wishes to say: Yes, my meeting with the Greeks will take place, but mine will not be a simple and brief talk with some persons, moved above all by curiosity. With my death, comparable to the fall into the earth of a grain of wheat, the hour of my glorification will come. From my death on the cross great fruitfulness will stem. The "dead grain of wheat" – symbol of my crucifixion – will become, in the Resurrection, bread of life for the world: It will be light for peoples and cultures. Yes, the encounter with the Greek soul, with the Greek world, will take place in that profundity to which the grain of wheat refers, which attracts to itself the forces of the earth and of heaven and becomes bread. In other words, Jesus prophesies the Church of the Greeks, the Church of pagans, the Church of the world as fruit of his Pasch.'
Images of Christ's Passion completely obscured by a black box, a young woman's face immersed in a basin full of jello, "The Gospel According to Ghandi", readings from agnostic philosophers, the holy altar 'obstructed by a framework holding the reflectors, projectors, and light and sound controls' -- how in the world does any of this connect to 'that profundity to which the grain of wheat refers'?
A brave excursion into the far frontiers of the new evangelization? Bosh.
Actually, Spirit is right about one thing: there's nothing unusual about any of this. Unitarians do this stuff all the time. Catholics like Spirit who are in sympathy with Unitarian spirituality probably find the whole thing rather ho-hummish.
Indeed, Spritz. It diverts us from confronting the fact that we don't believe in anything specific.
Peace, love, and lots of snooze time,
Di
I was hankering to get me some of that there spirituality, but then Edna plum ree-fused to get into my jacuzzi when I filled it with jello.
All right, so it was the pig trough I filled with jello. A man can dream, cain't he?
Speaking of Unitarian spirituality, I once attended a Unitarian wedding, and one of the readings was by ... guess who? ... that noble agnostic Camus. Now, let it be known that Albert Camus is one of my favorite writers. Yet I thought, What is the deal with Camus at a Church service? But of course it was NOT a Church service. It was a Unitarian "experience".
I know, I know, Fr. O'Leary is not suggesting that we incorporate readings from Camus into the Liturgy of the Word. I understand that the Duomo exhibition is a "paraliturgical" (what a term!) event. Yet when we start to turn our cathederals into venues for existentialist coffee shop readings and multi-media performance art ... well, it all starts to feel a bit more Unitarian and a bit less Trinitarian and Catholic.
Has anyone noticed the similarities between Fr Joe's presence on this blog, and the plight of the character Oliver Wendall Douglas on the immortal television show "Green Acres"?
As Oliver sought to spread the gospel of legalism, rationalism, and right procedure to the rustics of Hooterville, only to be flustered and made bellicose when reality consistently conformed to the rustics' notion of it, so must the pride 'o' Sophia U be frustrated by life in our zany fundie world.
It makes me wonder, if the Catholic Church were seen through the prism of "Green Acres", who would conform best to the characters? For Fr Joe, Oliver Wendall Douglas seems the obvious choice, but I confess that when I read his many, many, many posts, I sometimes imagine they have been written by Hank Kimball.
Cut away the boringly sentimental dialogues between Eddie Albert and his boring wife Eva Gabor, and "Green Acres" would be, hands down, the greatest achievement in the history of the medium. Even Albert Camus could find a home there -- he could play Eb.
This is a topic that urgently needs further exploration. If any of you are fortunate enough to be familiar with this monumental series, please comment!
Nein! Nein! Nein! Pius IX must be Eb!!
Hello. I am available for open dialogue and missionary work. By appointment only.
Surely, Martini and Tettamanzi = Alf and Ralph!
Dang, Ralph.
I bought some DVDs. They are TV shows from the 50s. I bought them mainly for the Dick van Dyke Show, but discovered I appreciate Andy Griffith more and more as I grow older. Unfortunately Lucy is the second series, not the classic one with Fred and Ethel and Ricky and Little Ricky. Meeta-Vita-Vegamin. The Red Skelton phenomenon escapes me.
So I watched Green Acres for the first time. And wouldn't you know it, that Pa character has a great deal of sense. Now I don't believe he would be a good banker, as is evident from the episode where he tries to be a banker. But he has good sense.
He's not the one you mean, is he?
I did not pick up that anti-Christian art was solicited ...
I didn't either, which is why I didn't say "anti-Christian." These artists couldn't produce anti-Christian art if they tried, because they probably haven't much of a clue what Christianity is. But you can bet your sweet petooties those in charge of soliciting the art are animated by your classic knee-jerk "Spirit of Vatican II" spastic reaction against anything remotely reminiscent of traditional Catholicism. Ergo, my judgment that they solicited art in the category "antithetical to the Christian," not meaning thereby that it is self-consciously animated by hostility to Christianity (of which it is likely incapable) but by oblivion, indifference, a worldview worlds removed to the point of being antithetical. Indeed, evangelization is the farthest thing from these guys minds. They're trying to provoke, and succeeding quite handily.
Maybe Soka Gakkai and Rinzai Zen are less nervous about losing their identity than Catholics are?
There's a not-too-subtle ad hominem implicit here. It's as if a steamed parishioner came to you complaining about some obliquely heretical or dissenting comment you made in public and you replied by asking whether ideas that didn't agree with orthodoxy made him nervous.
That's a little beside the point, isn't it. Of course emotion is involved, but it's hardly the root issue, any more than it would be if the tables were turned.
Europe is essentially post-Christian, neo-pagan, an empty shell of the Christendom it once was. The EU constitution doesn't even acknowledge a generic 'Christianity' as having a role in European history or identity. The USA is quickly following suit. Does this make us 'nervous' isn't the pertinent question. The pertinent question is whether it's appropriate to treat the House of God as a exhibition hall for a New Age 'happening.' I know Unitarians do it. I know mainline Protestants do. I now many Catholic churches have. Does this make it, somehow, fitting?
OK pb, you did not say "anti-Christian" but "in the category antithetical to the Christian" -- I did not mean to quote you verbatim but to summarize what you said.
I presume that this is YOUR judgment on the nature of the art and that you are not accusing the Milan clergy of soliciting artists because they were anti-Christian, as your phrasing might suggest; rather, in their ignorance, they do not realize that (all?) postmodern art is in the category antithetical to the Christian. Would you say that Vatican II has also sinned (through ignorance) in asking that the "art of our own days be given free scope in the Church"?
But in fact your position seems to despair of humanity today -- incapable, it would appear, of producing any art of spiritual depth.
You can "bet" you say that the Milan clergy have a kneejerk reaction against anything associated with traditional Catholicism? (Hope I paraphrased you satisfactorily there.) Why are you so sure of that? Wilde's "De Profundis" and Pasolini's "Gospel of St Matthew", to name two of the artists whose work was used, are STEEPED in traditional Catholicism. Have you seen Pasolini's film? Remember the portait of the grieving Virgin, easily the most convincing presentation of Mary in cinema.
Would you be as hostile to John Paul II for praying with non-Catholics at Assisi?
What of the popes who pray with Anglicans, and the recent invitation of Kasper by Rowan Williams to speak against women's ordination? Surely such identity-threatening openness is of the essence of the Gospel not to speak of the
"Maybe Soka Gakkai and Rinzai Zen are less nervous about losing their identity than Catholics are?
"There's a not-too-subtle ad hominem implicit here. It's as if a steamed parishioner came to you complaining about some obliquely heretical or dissenting comment you made in public and you replied by asking whether ideas that didn't agree with orthodoxy made him nervous."
There is a criticism of your rigid idea of Catholic identity, yes. But you are not accusing Soka Gakkai and Rinzai of anything heretical, and I am asking why the same dialogal openness in Catholicism is seen by you as incompatible with Catholic identity. I think Catholicism is the most capacious of religions, not a threatened sect.
"That's a little beside the point, isn't it. Of course emotion is involved, but it's hardly the root issue, any more than it would be if the tables were turned." I was not thinking of the emotion of anxiety but of the theological anxiety expressed by Dominus Iesus for example.
"Europe is essentially post-Christian, neo-pagan, an empty shell of the Christendom it once was. The EU constitution doesn't even acknowledge a generic 'Christianity' as having a role in European history or identity." Why should it? We have separation of Church and State. American documents don't mention Christianity either, only the pallid deistic supreme being of civil religion, and that is as it should be.
"whether it's appropriate to treat the House of God as a exhibition hall for a New Age 'happening.'" Again this is your judgment; even going on the biased account of Sandro Magister it is clearly intended as an evangelical encounter with the culture of our time
What strikes me particularly about this "outcry" pb is that it is part of a larger and deeply dispiriting pattern.
If people object so much to these events, which are neither liturgical nor para-liturgical, how much more must they object to pretty much any effort at imaginative or creative liturgy, using modern art and music.
This makes liturgical effort too costly for most people. The noisy nay-sayers, blockers, have contributed much to the deadness of the Catholic liturgy today.
Yes I find nothing joyous or optimistic about Dr Blosser’s approach to Catholicism. He brings to mind those great Gilbert and Sullivan lyrics about the man “who praises every century but this and every country but his own.” Except that with Dr Blosser no other Country gets any praise either. All is woe as the communion rails and kneelers have gone. The devil is afoot.
Europe is gone to hell in a handcart, America is fast going the same way – where oh where would he be happy – perhaps the growth centre of Christianity – sub-Saharan Africa where they do old time religion and the odd stoning of beauty queens just for sport.
I like Pasolini's "Gospel of St Matthew” very much it’s about as Catholic a movie as one can get. The music is good too especially the Gloria from Fr. Pere Guido Haazen’s Missa Luba. I would love to see Dr Blosser strapped to a gurney in an ancient Church as a big African Choir in native dress with drums and other percussion and tribal dancers did the Missa Luba (with the host suitably removed to a chapel). Man just to see the look on the face – it would be priceless.
No one here would deny that Catholicism is the most capacious of religions, a fact that is evident precisely in the development of the liturgy over the millenia. Yet even within the context of capacious development, there are boundaries, certain lines that should not be crossed. Our Lord himself is quite zealous about preserving the boundaries of right worship:
'The Passover of the Jews was at hand, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem. In the temple he found those who were selling oxen and sheep and pigeons, and the money-changers at their business. And making a whip of cords, he drove them all, with the sheep and oxen, out of the temple; and he poured out the coins of the money-changers and overturned their tables. And he told those who sold the pigeons, "Take these things away; you shall not make my Father's house a house of trade." His disciples remembered that it was written, "Zeal for thy house will consume me."' (Jn 2:13-17)
Please note that Jesus' anger is directed at activities that are not strictly liturgical, although obviously related to the liturgical sacrifices of the Jews. Yet a boundary has clearly been violated. A line has been crossed.
The question of liturgical (and paraliturgical) "fittingness" is quite legitimate. The challenge is to determine the objective criteria of fittingness. The problem with our discussion about the Duomo exhibition is that it has become too subjective, too much a question of personal judgment and taste.
What, then, are the objective criteria for judging the fittingness of an event like the Duomo exhibition?
'I was not thinking of the emotion of anxiety but of the theological anxiety expressed by Dominus Iesus for example.'
"Theological anxiety" -- that sounds like a loaded term, Father. Can you please elaborate on its meaning?
The tone of Dns Iesus is unnecessarily negative and adversarial -- especially for a document supposed to express the Church's Joy and Confidence facing a new Millennium. Hundreds of commentators have made this observation and there is a defensive interview by Ratzinger attempting to answer it (and sounding even more negative and defensive!).
'The tone of Dns Iesus is unnecessarily negative and adversarial ...'
It doesn't strike me that way at all. But who am I to argue against "hundreds of commentators"?
I've read the interview with Ratzinger. I think that his tone is more annoyed than defensive. The incessant negative reaction to Dominus Iesus clearly took him by surprise. Perhaps because the document was NOT INTENDED to be "negative and adversarial" -- yet commentators insisted on taking it that way. Perhaps this says more about the commentators than it does about the document itself.
All of this begs the question anyway. The spirit of the age (to which the postmodernist "happening" at the Duomo seems to pander more than evangelize) is scandalized by the proclamation that Jesus Christ is Lord. Therein lies the key to the negative reaction to Dominus Iesus.
You know, Father, sometimes the Joy and Confidence of faith compels us to say: anathema sit. One need only think of our Lord's anathematizations of fig trees and pharisees. So unnecessarily negative and adversarial!
Vatican II managed to say "Jesus is Lord" in a way that grabbed the world's ear, as did Karl Rahner. Ratzinger does not understand why his way of talking annoys people so much. He adopts the posture of a wounded martyr and has no insight into his own deficiency. Sorry, but that is the way it is; as Pope he has curbed this somewhat, but he is too old to change. The supreme mark of aging badly is failure of insight, and one sees clear evidence of this if one compares early works of Ratzinger, such as Introduction to Christianity, with those of his later years such as Theologische Grundprinzipien 1981 or so, a piece of very narrow-minded ultramontanism.
Or are you saying that a woman wrote the woman's words in Song and that a man wrote the man's words. For a man to appreciate male beauty or for a women to appreciate female attraction would, in your opinion, be obscene?
oops, wrong thread
Machs nichts.
'Vatican II managed to say "Jesus is Lord" in a way that grabbed the world's ear, as did Karl Rahner."
Right, so many people other than aged Catholic priests are reading Rahner or filling the Catholic Churches that are the legacy of Vatican II. This is about as convincing as the drum-beating of JP II and Ratzinger on the merits of the Council.
The real question is why the Church constantly feels the need to have to work itself innto a pretzel to communicate its message. Do you see Billy Graham or Joel Osteen or even thugs like Spong having such communication problems? Louis Bouyer quoted a critic who said the Church needed to fit its message ongo a calling card in an effective manner. Based on the liturgy wars this is still a ways off.
Spirit, no, I said your interpretation is obscene. obscenus= inauspicious, ill-omened, sinister.
Your reasoning is thoroughly disgusting and repulsive. You take good things and try to make them serve the bad. More than sheer sophistry, you engage in mental perversion.
This is the mental degradation which, St. Paul says, underlies the moral degradation of homosexual activity.
I would not wish this degradation on anyone, and here you are trying to make converts to it.
I'm older than you, and I still regard those shows as mostly sentimental claptrap or just plain junk. Andy Griffith was ok in small doses, but Dick Van Dyke was a damn disgrace to the gender, and I never, ever got Lucy. To me she was just a loud, whiney boob.
But with "Green ACres" there was occasionally a sense of the absurdity of modern man and his pretentions that I found hilarious. The chronology is all wrong, of course, but I could well imagine Joseph Heller scripting this show in his salad days, before he Got Serious and went on to write what is to my mind the Great American Novel, "Catch-22"
But Kathy Kathy
How can you have anything to say about good taste (or any other matter) when you cite "Green Acres" (or any other old sitcom) as evidence for any proposition.
Seriously that takes the cake. If you must watch tv don't admit too it in intelligent company
By the way, who the hell is "Pa"?
Atiyah,
Do you smoke with a cigarette holder?
Just curious.
Ralph
Dear Ralph
No.
But I bet you do.
I would prefer to try a hookah myself. sometimes I smoke a pipe and I really dig Cuban Cigars.
Now your turn Ralph - when did you start wearing a dress?
Atiyah
Gracious. Have you forgotten which end goes in your mouth?
One writer described the thought processes of Hank Kimball, the funniest of all "Green Acres" characters, as "inductive Escherisms".
What a handy phrase, especially if is speaking of Vatican II documents!
Atiyah, people who try to prove themselves intelligent by comparison fool no one. It's a cheap move that I can only hope is beneath you.
Sorry Kathy
But most American sitcoms grate on me - I struggle to take anyone seriously who takes them seriously.
Ralph:
You clearly have an oral fixation – see someone (in the Freudian school) about it
Atiyah,
I struggle similarly with those who revel in comparing men to the screechy fellows I see snacking on one another's fleas at the local zoo.
Although, on occasion, I sympathize with their insight.
Philip:
Could you call an (armed) truce between these warring parties?
Do we need an (armed) truce, guys? Or has this thread unravelled to its tangled end? Perhaps we can move on.
I, unilaterally and totally without authority, declare the thread ended. We will now discuss the socio-political impact of "I Married Joan" v. "I Love Lucy," and how Jim Backus' characterization in "Mister Magoo's Christmas Carol" undermined the Democratic Party in the 1960s with unrealistic concepts of human nature.
Or we could just order another schooner.
Frankly, I could cheerfully go either way.
Commenting by HaloScan
