Catholic Liturgy

Many Roman Catholics, both liberal and conservative, like to talk about a “debate” going on in terms of the liturgy. From what I see, there is no “debate”: there is a bunch of angry people talking at each other and not to each other–a common religious occurrence. There are undoubtedly good people on both sides of the bogus debate who do have the best of intentions in mind but I am of the belief that the overwhelming majority of each side are mainly ideologues with control issues who can only see things in the dualistic fashion of either/or rather than both/and. On top of that, many people who are “liturgists” are either set in their ways, lack historical knowledge, know little on language, and know virtually nothing about, to use a term they despise, “theater” (they like to use the terms “drama” and “dramatic” but never theater). How about a few points on what each side wants? Sound reasonable?

Liberals:

Let’s talk about the liberal wing. They want dancing, ‘pastoral language’, hugging and kissing, modern music, and modern architecture. What are the issues with this? I really don’t see any. When you look into it, you’ll see the problems: problems can always be fixed.

The first thing you’ll realize is they don’t know how to dance. They turn liturgical dance into a sideshow that really has nothing to do with worship or flow of the liturgy. On top of that, many liberals complain about the passivity of the congregation and think dance is a form of “active participation” but by adding soloists who dance as a sideshow, the passivity of the assembly is reinforced[1]. In some cultures, the form of dance used works as an integral part of the liturgy however, many westerners, specifically North Americans and Europeans, have not clue in how to use it.

“Pastoral language” is something nobody can be against, right? How many people don’t even know what it is? Is it when the celebrant says “Good morning everyone and welcome!” after the entrance hymn even though there was a welcome before the entrance procession began? Is it telling a joke during the homily? Is it using gender inclusive language? Is it using Latin where possible? The intention is all well and good as pastoral is not a bad word. What is the role of the celebrant/liturgical minister? The role of that person is to serve the assembly which stands in worship. Much frivolous talk on the part of the priest (the 25 minute homily[2], the joke, the story about a movie he watched, a visit to his mother, etc) makes the liturgy center around the celebrant rather than the Creator. With the desire for pastoral language, you end up with a line that is easily crossed between serving the community and clericalism. You have some people, such as Bishops Donald Trautman of Erie, PA, former head of the US Bishops committee on the liturgy who insist on ‘pastoral language’ over sacred language however, he comes across as a former head of a committee that just can’t let go of his authority.[3]

As for hugging and kissing well, nobody should have an issue with it as it goes way back in Christian tradition. In the modern world of course, we don’t want to touch the stranger next to us as, they may be a lighter color than us or we fear the germs (so much for the healing power of Christ and the protection of the Holy Spirit!). Think, Swine Flu[4]

There’s no accounting for taste. When we get into the modern music and modern architecture debate, well, this has the potential for all hell to break loose. Pretty much everyone likes Gothic, Renaissance, and baroque architecture and everyone likes Renaissance and baroque but many forget, at one time, those three were “modern architecture”. There are some things that appeal to people’s aesthetic tastes that often do not mix (sort of like Margaret Thatcher and a bikini). Finding a balance here is the hard part. Let’s be honest, some modern churches look great others are an outright horror show. In the 1970s, when Quaaludes and disco were popular, some of the things people did with churches were out right scary.


I’ve seen an old combination of a Romanesque/Palaeologan Byzantine basilica that had its interior ripped out, and altar moved to the side. It looked ridiculous. Some of the modern churches are lacking to say the least. Many don’t have a feeling of sacred space: a modern church in the middle of a parking lot with an entrance that looks more like a bank than a church just does not have it.



I suppose there are some ingredients any church needs. Iconography is definitely one of them. At the very least, it gives one something to look at when the priest is giving a 25 minute sermon. Perhaps you can mediate on the scene portrayed on a groovy stained glass window and regard it as a form of ‘active participation’ (the priest won’t get the message if he sees you reading the bulletin so you might as well play nice and look around). I think a church also needs a narthex (fancy term for vestibule). It functions as a transition between the public and the sacred realms. Christ Church on Park Avenue in Manhattan is a perfect example. You can walk in from the hustle and bustle of a Manhattan street and the narthex is a perfect place for the change. When you then go into the nave, you get a nice, quiet place—such a nice locale to escape the hectic city (and the fact the church is Methodist in Manhattan means it’s empty all the time).


As for the music, well, here we have an issue. Every Christmas, everyone likes “Adeste Fidelis” and “Hark the Herald!” but the problem there is, the rest of the year. At Christmas and Easter, churches may hire professionals that are trained and do a wonderful job playing the “classics”. The rest of the year, what do many churches have? A 1960s left over that loves folk music on the guitar. Problem there is the person knows fifteen songs. How many times does one need to hear “On Eagles Wings” or “Make Me an Instrument of Your Peace”? I don’t need to hear “Stairway to Heaven” anymore and than the more popular “contemporary Christian” tunes. That title, “contemporary Christian”, alone is indicative of SHIT music.

I would think another aspect that churches do need for them to function properly would be permanence. Can a trailer really function as a “sacred site”? A few final thoughts I suppose a church needs areis size, a nave, apse, aforementioned narthex, and a sanctuary. The last must be distinguished from the rest of the church as the Holy of Holies was in the Temple in Jerusalem. Liberals hate that last one as most believe there should be no distinction of space (“God is everywhere”) and deep down, they’re closeted anti-Semites anyway.

Conservatives:
Conservatives, want chanting (Gregorian of course, though within the Roman tradition, there are others such as Baroque polyphony), Latin, lots of rubrics, and anything that smells of “Tradition”. All of that sounds good to me as well. That said, there are right ways and wrong ways of doing it. Sometimes, many conservative groups stage their liturgies in such a way where it looks “forced”. The Tridentine Mass on EWTN looks more staged than the Latin rite baptism in “The Godfather”. There’s a problem.

People like chant and always did. How many times have I gone along with the crowds and chanted “Let’s Go Mets!” at old Shea Stadium? “U-S-A! U-S-A!” at the Olympics or World Cup is always popular and of course, my personal favorite sports chant: “Potvin Sucks!” (and I am not even a NY Rangers fan). Liberals may not like it and hate to admit it but people like Gregorian chant. Perhaps they detest it so much because they know it drives conservatives batty and conservatives love it because liberals hate it. That sounds like a nice, unhealthy relationships that helps feed the 12 step programs that meet in the chuch basements. Look, chant has been around along time and Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs and Jews all have a form of chant. Chant is a universal religious practice in this world. It works, conservatives are right on this issue, and liberals don’t have a leg to stand on. You can pull an atheist in off the street and ask them “Which do you prefer?” and allow them to hear Gregorian chant or “One Bread One Body” sung out of key by some person playing a guitar and guess what the atheist will prefer?

The paradox of Latin: Public schools are instituting Latin, though having a tough time finding teachers, while most Catholic schools shun it. That gets back to what I said about liberals and Gregorian chant. From a utilitarian point of view, if Latin can give a student points on their SAT and get them in to top tier schools, then the Catholic schools should be teaching it, at the very least, the help their students be more competitive. Why not? In the religious sense, throwing in a few prayers, responses, or even songs in Latin works and for many, especially young people, it might even add a sense of “mystery”. Here with music you have an issue: sure, Mozart, Bach, Beethoven and the other greats wrote wonderful church music BUT……..the words are in latin. So what happens? They want to throw the baby out wit the bath water.

There are times and places for pomp, ceremony, and formality. You wouldn’t wear a polo shirt to your son’s funeral or flip flops & a tank top shirt to the White House. Many liberal criticisms of the conservative’s desire for pomp and formality are more generational than anything else. One, liberals like to “be comfortable” but I am sure someone like Tom Ford might just say “you may be more comfortable naked but, that doesn’t mean you look good” and two, they just wanted to be different back in the 60s and 70s so they wore powder blue tuxedos with ruffled shirts at their weddings. Way to go guys: you looked SHARP!


What is Tradition? It is something people ‘pass on’ from generation to generation. Who would have an issue with that? A good friend of mine took his son to his first Mets game and was damned proud of it! God bless him for it! Of course, as a Mets fan myself, I think that might just classify as a form of abuse. The ladies in Louisville, KY like showing off their hats on Oaks and Derby Day and if you want to get rid of that tradition, you’re going to enter a world of hurt. There is nothing wrong with passing on a tradition. Problem here is that you can not force it. Liberals want to reject tradition, and conservatives want to reinstate and stagnate it. Let’s be honest, the truth lies in between. There’s an ebb and flow that goes on, almost like Adam Smith’s “invisible hand.” The Mass may be said in the vernacular, the priest babbles, the music sucks, and the church looks like a branch office of Wachovia in Northern Virginia but so many traditions remain. People will still decorate their trees at Christmas, wear black at funerals, and watch fireworks on the Fourth of July (I go the Belmont Park). There’s always hope! Just ask any horse player.

Conclusion:
It all comes down to mindset. Here in America, we are “Westerners” and we think in a set way, overall. A good friend of mine was in Rome with his wife in 2005. He was fortunate enough to be inside St. Peter’s as a tourist when a liturgy began. His opinion means something as he is a secular Jew but he thought the way everything came together was brilliant: the art, the architecture, the music, the procession, even the office of Pope, all just combined to make something amazing, he thought. I was lucky enough to chaperone a trip to Italy in Spring 2009 and I took several students to the Easter Vigil at the Duomo in Florence. They were impressed. A group of kids from a Queens, NY catholic high school accustomed to the usual American silliness at mass loved how the architecture, the art work, the music (yes, the used the organ), the languages (Italian and Latin), even the bell (at the consecration at 1:05 AM Giotto’s Bell Tower rang) all came together. In effect, they put on a good show. Why people are against doing a “good show” these days is beyond me. There’s an element of “sacred theater” that liturgists, whether liberal or conservative, need to employ and constantly work on otherwise, they’ll close just like any other show.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] Kavanagh, Aidan. Elements of Rite: A Handbook of Liturgical Style. Liturgical Press, 1990. p. 33

[2] National Catholic Reporter, March 10, 2010. “Homilies Should be Under Eight Minutes Long”

[3] Ibid, October 26, 2009. “Liturgy Needs Not Sacred Language But “Pastoral Language”

[4] The New York Times, October 17, 2009. “Flu Fears Curb Life’s Rituals”

Has the Republican Party gone insane?

Has the Republican party gone nuts?

YES! It’s a fact.

So they lost the 2008 Presidential election. Big deal. Their problem is, they can not admit why they lost. I’ll tell you why they lost. President George W. Bush was useless. You can be a lifelong republican and you have to admit it. Even after the 2006 elections, that gave the Republicans two years to fix their mess ad they did not even attempt to. You can not say one good thing that happened when he was in the White House. It began with a stolen election and ended with his precious ‘free market system’ collapsing and being put on life support by the Treasury Department. In between those events, we had the murder of over 3000 people by a bunch of Satanists in Al Qaeda, Enron, WorldCom, Haliburton, two wars, Hurricane Katrina, Bear Sterns, AIG, and Lehman Brothers. You can even make a case for Justin Timberlake’s career success. He was so incompetent he made Jimmy Carter look like FDR.

The Democrats finally realize they need a Democrat in the White House, not a fat thighed, jogging, McChicken eating, White Trash Cracker, and right winger (yes, he did bring us NAFTA) with an eye for kinky fat girls with sexual proclivities bordering on the “exotic”. Then there was Hillary who was of the belief that Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton would have been really good for America. Yah! In comes Obama who runs a textbook campaign: runs at Hillary from the left and secures his nomination (liberals s liked the Ted Kennedy endorsement), moves to the center for the general election and scores. The fact McCain claimed the “principles of the economy are sound” just a few hours before Lehman Brothers collapsed and his naming of Sarah Palin as Veep did as much good for Obama as Obama’s “yes we can” and message of “hope”. .

Now let’s look at the republican insanity of late.

1. Sarah Palin: OK, we know she’s now just in it for the money and she’s doing quite well with her book and her speaking appearances. Good for her. That said, she was never ready for politics on the national level. She looked like a complete idiot in the Katie Couric interview and Republicans then attacked The Widow Monahan for it. All she asked was what newspapers does she read and name a supreme court case. Such tough questions!

2. Tea Party:
Angry baby boomers are pissed off the President is black. They won’t admit it, but let’s admit it, it’s true. Now what do you have? People running for office saying the craziest things and think it might get the votes. Think Tim James in Alabama. Now we even have George Pataki trying to make a comeback. They’re ousting Bob Bennet in Utah for not being conservative enough. You know, I’d say you can put money on the conservative votes from Utah senators. In Florida, they manage to get Chalrie Crist to leave the Republican Party and now he’s running as an independent. It would be a gas to see the Democrat win now. What would the tea partiers do then?

3. Michellle Bachman
Other than talking insanity, she is starting to look it. Maybe she has been running a clandestine meth lab out there in Minnesota.

3. “Birthers” a group of people that can not believe the President of the USA was actually born in it. How many times the birth certificate has gone public?

4. Health Care:
The GOP offered nothing other than being against it. Hence, the President’s law gets passed. Maybe had they played ball, they could have got what they wanted into the new law. Why bother? “Let’s do nothing and we will win”—politics doesn’t work that way.

4. Bank reform
“Let the markets correct themselves”. Many of these geniuses have the same idea. Well, ask Herbert Hoover how that plan went. So the government bails out the banks with billions and billions of dollars and of course, the republicans don’t think cleaning up a few things that led to this mess is a good idea. Needless to say, as the party of no, they have nothing to offer and guess what that means? They get nothing done.

5. The party of “NO”
We don’t know what we’re doing but we do know, we’re against anything the President intends on doing. Sure, that will really get you the votes. Didn’t Bobby Jindal and Mark Sanford refuse stimulus money? You don’t turn down free money. Of course, thanks to BP’s oil slick, Bobby is looking for federal money now.

So to sum up, the GOP believes that they can win Congress this November with a bevy of lunatic fringers and no plan for governing. With the economy getting better, they may just be in for another rude awakening.

It’s a fact. All that banking deregulation that went on for close to thrity years did not work. Alan Greenspan even agreed but, does his opinion matter much anymore? The Chicago School of economic thought, after the Keynesians either retired or died off, pushed their interpretation through schools and their idea of the ‘dismal science’ reigned. The Glass-Steagall Act was finally, once and for, repealed by President Clinton 1999 and within a decade, the banking system of the USA collapsed. We might as well throw in the same ideology of the Bush administration. They did not even enforce the few regulations that were left: just think of Bernie Madoff, Enron, derivatives, the housing bubble, etc. Now, this wonderful nation has been Graced by politicians claiming that instituting new regulation would hurt the economy. Many of them are the same geniuses that voted for repealing Glass-Steagall; John McCain said the “fundamentals of the economy are sound” and a few hours later, Lehman Brothers collapsed. If you ask me, some members of Congress shouldn’t even be allowed to vote this time around. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice?

Are there new securities that did not exist in 1999? New banking gargantuans that did not exist prior to the repeal of Glass-Steagall? In other words, things have changed and regulation needs to change with it. When dealing with an industry that deals in billions of dollars and somebanks have $2 trillion in assets: greed, fraud, and theft should run rampant no? Human nature being what it is……

Some of the Chicago school ideologues think that markets are ‘rational’ and that ‘self policing’ actually works. I am sure these are the same people that think Elvis is still alive and President Obama is a secret Muslim. Ford Motor posts $2 billion profit for the first quarter of 2010 and their stock price drops. JP Morgan Chase, the best managed banking institution in the USA, posts a $3.3 billion profit for the first 3 months of 2010 and their stock price drops below the price prior to the announcement. Yeah, real ‘rational’!

One thing I thing I have not heard anyone mention as a solution for all of this is education. Why haven’t I heard that? Simple: deregulation of the media. It’s a federal crime for Rupert Murdoch to lie in his letter to shareholders in the annual report but, his news agencies can lie trough their teeth and make up any idiocy. So, when Fox interviews someone on TV about the economy, they bring in a right wing ideologue to give the party line. Does Anne Coulter know anything about the national economy? She’s good at ‘making money’ though: long legs, blonde hair, and leather pants works for her I guess. Glenn Beck is still telling people to buy gold even after a 4500 point stock market rally (100% in gold over the last decade or $1.01 to $14.52 in Ford over the past 18 months. Which do you want? Hint, do the math). Liberals, ahem, progressives, aren’t much better. When talking about oil drilling off the eastern seaboard, MSNBC interviews someone from The Sierra Club. I learned any time oil is drilled, evertything is bad always. Either way you have it, they will tell you biased, ideological, opinionated chickenshit. Why not ask, say a professor of economics? Be careful there as they tend to be the nay saying, doomsday types. Maybe a professor of environmental studies? Why not have them? Simple reason really: they’re not good for sound bites and thus the TV stations will have a challenge selling commercial time. Craziness sells.

Who was it who said “there are more banks than bankers”? That’s part of the problem. Today you have enormous banking enterprises such as JP Morgan Chase and Citigroup that have their hand in every aspect of banking: investment, commercial, retail, mortgages, asset management, card services, etc. If one large segment of the bank goes down, say, the investment bank, that can pull the rest down like the suction in ‘Titanic’ –I did not cry during the film. Sorry for being so cold and insensitive, ladies. To run an operation like that, there has to be new regulation. You also have to train bankers to juggle all of such fields which won’t happen. Maybe do something in management along the lines of Proctor & Gamble. Their highest managers ran Tide, Charmin, Crest, Cascade, Joy, etc. over the years and when they get to the top, they ‘know’ their company. Could you see the banks doing that? I doubt it. If a person is a young hotshot in investment banking at Citigroup, they’re not going to move that person to a branch office of the retail bank in Queens in 2 years. Could you really blame them? “I make you $100 million and you’re sending me out to a branch office in Sunnyside? Screw you buddy; I’m off to Goldman”. What does it mean? Unless there’s some new regulations passed into law and more education/training, coupled with the short collective memory of Americans, and human nature, there will be another financial mess at some point within the next 20 years.