Vague Words (again!)

I have been thinking a bit lately about the recent decision of Pope Francis to sign a document that stated that God "willed" that there be a multiplicity of religions. I suppose this could be accurate if we are thinking about the tower of Babel -- but that was not a good thing--it was a punishment! I have said before that it is a sad state of things when we have to spend time trying to find an orthodox way to take the words of our Holy Pontiff, but that is where we are at. I, personally, have grown so tired of doing it that I usually let others go about it, and just do my best to put little emphasis on these problematic comments and keep my focus on Christ.

Whatever Francis meant by signing that document (orthodox or not), the entire experience of being grieved by the words of our Pope on a regular basis can really wear us down. What adds to this difficulty is that, for one reason or another, few Bishops are speaking out against the harm that Francis is causing. I am not surprised that many say they are concerned whether the Pope is in a state of grace or not. I am not the one to judge this, but it does give me cause to pray for his soul (and possibly his conversion to the Catholic faith). I am not just aiming at bashing Francis or any of the other Bishops and Cardinals who behave in similar compromised fashion; rather, we are all forced to deal with these repeated problems, and I cannot say nothing.

I recall a quote from the 19th century that I read a while back:

"That which is difficult to obtain by employing defined words becomes easy when using vague words which, depending on the state of mind of those who read or hear them, comprise an absolutely opposed meaning".

In other words, of you say something vague enough you can make people hear whatever they want to hear. I sincerely pray to our Lord that this is not what Francis is doing at times, yet it does feel that way. I am encouraged each day to remember that of all the bad that the devil can throw against the Church, nothing he does will ever destroy her. It is remarkable how often I tell myself that.

I am also reminded of a quote from St. Pius X, where he pointed out that "modernists" (which is, by the way, still a bad thing to be) will intentionally hide their false doctrines in "certain ambiguous words and nebulous formulae to catch the incautious in their snares..." Once again the brilliance of that great Saint is shown clearly. He warned us about how things were developing back in the early 20th century, and it seems as though few in the Church paid attention.

So my encouragement to everyone is try not to get too caught up in trying to find the orthodoxy (or the unorthodoxy) in the Holy Father's statements. Unless we see a genuine repentance (or maybe a retirement!?), these things will likely continue. Therefore, just keep reminding yourself that we are dependent on Christ and not on anyone else. Remind yourself that no error is too big for Jesus to conquer. Finally, keep your focus on that great testimony of our Lord when He ascended into Heaven:

All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age.

The Idol of Politics

A long time ago in ancient Europe, and for a while here in America, when a town was built, the Church was usually placed at the very center and everything revolved around it. This was both practical and symbolic. Since everyone saw their church as the center of their lives (after all, what could be more important than your eternal destiny?), they wanted it to be right there where it was visible and accessible. Then (I am not exactly sure when), towns began to be designed a bit differently; they put the courthouse at the center of the town square, and the churches all got pushed further out.

It may seem to some like this is just a technical point, but there is something very specific going on here. Christianity was losing its influence, and the state was becoming more and more the key player in society. This is not to say that there was never a problem with statism (the idea that the civil state is the primary authority in all existence) before these things started happening. There have always been those kings and politicians who wanted to be worshipped (think of Pharaoh). Yet, in a society like America, where things were founded on (moderately) Christian principles, it is very revealing to see this change take place.

Even the media seems to portray for us that the most important thing to impact our lives is what is going on politically (the "State of the Union" speech is center stage; what about the "State of the Church"?). This perspective here in these United States has spread so efficiently, that most do not even know that they have bought into it. In fact, there is an odd consequence of this trend: today it seems politicians want to teach us morals, and clergy want to teach us politics. Is something going on here? No, I do not mean every politician or every clergyman, but I do mean a large percentage of them.

The Christians in America, a few generations back, largely handed over the responsibility of caring for the poor to the civil government (it is what we call, "welfare and social security"). When this happened, the government became a Nanny; and, of course, Nannies have to teach and guide and train, so American politicians quickly switched from implementing moral truth that was taught by the Church, to teaching its own understanding of what moral truth is. From there, the slippery slope is easy to see. As soon as statism takes a firm seat at the table, socialism is likely going to follow soon after.

I think I know what it is that has helped this philosophy to take such a firm hold on people today. We have been brainwashed to believe that politics is the most important thing in the world. This is why many clergymen (who are not supposed to be "the politicians of the Church") who believe that politics is the key to the universe often try to "play politician". How many homilies have you heard recently that come across as more of a political commentary than an admonition to self-sacrificial holiness?

As usual, I must clarify so that no misunderstandings can occur here. The civil government is not supposed to be "amoral" or aim at some foolish neutrality in ethical issues (which is what many politicians claim to be doing today--which only goes to show how completely confused they are). Neither are clergymen supposed to be silent on whether a politician or a law is morally right. Each is supposed to be active in the arena of the other. The issue is how are they active? If they are active by confusing their proper roles, then something is amiss.

If priests are constantly preaching about political issues ("this policy is good; this senator is bad") then they are also giving in to the idea that politics is the center of our existence. When politicians are constantly telling us that they know what is good and moral, then they are wanting us to believe that they can decide on morality on their own. Show me a clergyman who preaches clearly about holiness and I will show you someone who is equipping his people to know whether a politician is moral or not. Show me a politician who says, "I don't trust my own judgment on morality, but I will listen to the authentic Magisterium of the Church" and I will show you someone who can be trusted to lead.

In the grand scheme of things, politics does not matter (there, I said it!). Yes, it matters whether a politician is promoting an immoral political scheme (as the majority are today), but what goes on in politics has a relatively small impact on society when compared with religion. Consider this for a moment: does your governor, or the speaker of the house, or the president have an impact on your eternal destiny? Sure, laws and politicians have an impact on how much of your hard earned money you can keep, and how many personal freedoms you have, but how much do those things effect your faith in God (unless you choose to give them more power than they are supposed to have!)?

There are two basic reasons why so many people have fallen for the error that politics is the "biggest authority on earth". First, we have been taught for generations now that the government will solve all our problems, so now we have begun to believe it. Second: once you abandon faith in the God Who can solve our problems, you have to look elsewhere for a new "savior" and politicians would love for you to think that they are that very thing! When we lose faith in God, we always transfer our faith to someone or something else. Of all the false gods that the devil offers, it seems that the state is the one that taking a front seat today. Let us not give in to the idols of this age.

A Novus Ordo Mass in the Ordinariate?

St. George is an Ordinariate Parish. This means that we are not a part of the local diocese, but under the authority of a different jurisdiction within the Catholic Church. Our Bishop is in Houston, Texas, where our Cathedral -- Our Lady of Walsingham -- is located. As you probably know, our normal form of the Mass is called, "Divine Worship". This form of the Mass is Latin Rite (as are the Extraordinary and Ordinary forms), but it is a descendent of the ancient Sarum Missal in England (which was originally developed by Augustine of Canterbury in the 7th century).

Our rules and norms that were given to us by Rome, also state, however, that we can say the Ordinary Form (a.k.a. the Novus Ordo) in our parishes. I gave this some thought recently. It would be an understatement for me to point out that I prefer the Divine Worship Form, but I contemplated what a Novus Ordo would look like when done according to the Ordinariate rules for celebration of the Mass. I also contemplated what it would be like if I were to observe the Novus Ordo exactly according to the rubrics that are listed in the Missal.

It would definitely not look like the way that it is being celebrated in a large percentage of Catholic parishes today. There are a number of practices that are used in parishes these days that have been "grandfathered" in, though they are not what was technically a part of the original plans. I am not trying here to criticize those practices (I have done that before), but I am saying that in the Ordinariate we have a different way of doing things, and those practices would be fully maintained. Also, I have some traditional practices that I prefer in the Mass (many of which come from the Extraordinary Form). What, therefore, would a Novus Ordo Mass done like that look like?

Here are some of the details (in no special order) that I came up with--though there could be more:

1) Although some parts would be in English, the Canon (i.e. the "Eucharistic Prayer") would be said in Latin.
2) Since here at St. George there is not a "freestanding" altar (it is always and only attached to the back wall) it would be said "ad orientem" (with the priest facing the tabernacle when he speaks to God, and facing the people when he speaks to them).
3) There would be only altar boys (girl-altar-boys are not allowed in the Ordinariate).
4) There would be no Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion (here at St. George I always serve by intinction, and the laity are not allowed to assist with communion served that way).
5) Communion would be received kneeling, at the rail, and on the tongue.6) There would be no "peace greeting" that is allowed in the Novus Ordo, except the initial priest to people, "the peace of the Lord be with you always...and with your spirit".
7) There would be no "carrying the gifts forward" that is allowed in the Novus Ordo.
8) The singing for the Mass would be done in Anglican Plainsong Chant (a form of Gregorian Chant), with no hymns or pop-tunes.

I was not there when the original decisions were made to develop the Novus Ordo form, but I wonder how much of what is done today was a part of their expectations. I do know that one Cardinal who was present at Vatican II was said to have commented about the Divine Worship Mass as "this is what we thought we were getting with the Novus Ordo". If Pope Francis is correct when he commented that the Novus Ordo "is here to stay", then I wonder if this description above is what it would look like after a century of corrections. It is certainly something to think about (and pray about).

Pastoral Accompaniment

In Church circles we often hear about the need for priests to be willing to "accompany" their people. Taken at face value, there is nothing wrong with this idea. There is a significant problem, however, when we realize that some have taken the idea of "accompaniment" and changed it to mean something that it does not normally mean. Technically, the term "accompany" means to be present with someone; all good and well. There are some, however, who have decided to dump foreign ideas into the word that causes many to hear it and think of something other than what is correct.

"Accompaniment" has, to many people today (including some clergy, sadly) come to mean to support a person in their current state, regardless of whether it is right or not. It is almost as though the idea of calling someone to repentance has been done away with. According to this view, no longer are priests supposed to lead people to turn from their sins, rather they are supposed to be a "shoulder to lean on" and a "supportive buddy" who will just pat them on the hand and say "it'll be OK, don't worry".

I recall an incident where one priest said to another priest, "those people need someone to accompany them". The second priest stated that he was doing everything he could to "be there for them" and give them guidance whenever he could. The first priest said, "that's not accompaniment; they don't need guidance, they need someone to support them right where they are, not tell them to change". What's wrong with this picture? Am I the only one who sees this as compromise? If you are about to drink poison and I tell you "it'll be OK" am I helping or hurting?

When people are hurting, it is true that they need support. They need their priest to come alongside and show them that he is "there for them". They need someone willing to listen and seek to be sympathetic to their difficulties. If, however, those difficulties came about because of their sinful choices, and they are now encountering the temporal consequences of their behavior, guidance is precisely what they need. A priest needs to "accompany" them by letting them know that he is sorry for what they are having to endure but that there are ways to avoid it in the future.

Yes, it is true that a priest should not unload a burden of corrections on those who are suffering (at least not right at the very beginning, or all at one time). Yet, if he does not come to them with guidance, he is not truly accompanying them. Rather we could say that he is abandoning them! What kind of "accompaniment" allows a person to continue in error that will lead to further problems? Imagine for a moment an organist providing accompaniment for a chant in Mass. Now try to picture that the cantor is off key and the organist does nothing to correct it; he just plays but ignores the problem. Will we have a beautiful piece of music? No. Take it one step further. Imagine that the cantor is off key and the organist chooses to ignore the notes for the chant and plays off key exactly like the cantor.

Both of the images in the previous paragraph are describing what the modern idea of "accompaniment" looks like in the pastoral setting. We would not consider either of those to be proper accompaniment. Instead, we would expect the organist to stop and speak to the cantor, "ummm, sorry, but that's not the correct key". Is he being rude or insensitive for doing so? Only a self-centered cantor would think that. A priest is not "accompanying" if he just smiles at someone in their sin and says, "it'll be OK". He accompanies by being available, speaking to them, giving counsel, and letting them know that he is willing to help them to find the path to holiness and joy in Christ. This is what the laity should expect from their priests, and this is what every priest should provide.

Do We Really Want Gender Equality?

The man apparently turned himself in to the police (good job!), but when the video first came out of the "hulking brute" (the exact words of the news report) who violently slugged two women on the street who were trying to calm him down, people went nuts. Please withhold judgment for just a minute on the point I am making. I am not saying that people should have been cheering him on, no. I just find it to be surprising that anyone is shocked at this. What should we expect when we have been flooded with images of "tough women" in the media, and where young girls are encouraged to be soldiers and play on boy's football teams?

Take for example the portrayal of women that is being given in movies so much lately. How many times have we heard an actress say how great it is to "play a strong woman who can fight" or laud a female character "who can kick butt"? We see these actresses who are "tough" themselves playing roles that display women going fist to fist with men and, (at least in the story), showing themselves to be stronger and more physically adept. This is sometimes even the case when the men clearly outweigh them by about 100 pounds.

So, we are being shown all these "tough women" in movie situations (many of which are performing feats way beyond reality) and we get used to it. We become accustomed to thinking of women as "just one of the guys". How many movies these days show women in brutal combat positions performing with just as much strength as the guy who is 6' 4" and weighs 250 pounds? How often have we been shown female marines being treated as "just a soldier, regardless of sex"? The more we get used to the idea, the more we will play it out in real life. The intent (I presume) of those who choose this scenario for the movies is to encourage women to be strong and achieve an equal status in all things with the men.

The unexpected result (which is clear) is what is seen in the news story I referred to (and it is probably happening a whole lot more than we realize). Of course people will actually begin to treat women as "one of the guys". How much of a fervor would there have been in the news story if this "hulking brute" had punched two men? Most would have said nothing more than "he got in a fight", correct? So if we really want women to be "equal in all things" and to be strong fighters right along side the men, then why is anyone complaining that this man treated these two women as "one of the guys"? Is it because they are shorter than he? Not likely; many of the "tough women" of the movies are these skinny little things with barely any muscle (but somehow in the story writer's view of the world, they can still hold their own in a battle with all kinds of monsters!).

The point I am making is this: we all know that men and women are not genuinely "equal in all respects", and when that inequality (which was designed by God for our good) comes to the surface, we cannot ignore it. Those who want women soldiers should not say anything about a man violently punching a woman who confronted him. She put herself out there, right? If, however, you realize that God wants us to value and appreciate the differences between men and women, then you will want to allow those differences to be recognized by society and become the practice of all.

As I have said before, let men be men, and let women be women. Only there can we really "reach our full potential". Only when we reject feminism's foolish concept of "equality" can we really be able to find the proper equality that God calls us to; equality as baptized people before Christ our Lord. In this world, egalitarian ideals do not work, and they always lead to abuse; abuse that is both physical and spiritual. We need to see these "tough women" roles for what they are: an attack on femininity, an attack on womanhood, and an attack on godly order.

Rejoicing in the Truth

"Did you hear what the Pope just said?" That is the point that my stomach gets tied in knots. During the pontificate of Benedict XVI if I heard that comment I would respond the exact opposite: excitement and interest. Now I respond with worry (and sometimes even say "please don't tell me"). Yet, a couple times lately Pope Francis has said something that was quite solid. Once recently he gave clear support for priestly celibacy as the norm (yes, I know about his reference to the viri probati). On another instance earlier he endorsed the removal of priests who have homosexual inclinations.

I recall someone who mentioned these comments to me saying that he expected it to be withdrawn as a misquote. Although I understand his pessimism, there is another possibility. As many problematic comments and actions that we have seen come from Pope Francis, he has yet clearly and firmly to advocate a heretical doctrine. Yes, he has skirted the edges quite a few times, but never actually fallen to this (he is a poor communicator who is often hard to understand--maybe intentionally?). What does he actually believe? I suspect that we are better off not knowing -- finding out might be a serious cause of stress.

No one who has read this blog regularly will be surprised to hear that I am at times critical of things that are coming out of Rome lately. I am not a pessimist, nor am I an optimist -- I tend to think of myself as a realist. At least, that is true when it comes to things of men. When, however, we are speaking about the things of God, then I would be a radical optimist. The Lord is always stronger and more loving than we can imagine, and that means that He is always doing things that are better than we expect.

One thing that our Lord promises to do, but we often forget about in times of trial and confusion, is to protect us. He promises that He will keep the truth clear and available for us. He promises that the Church will remain indefectible. He promises that the Pope will not promulgate a heresy. It can be hard to remember these things when our current Pope, and many of those who surround him, are flirting with error, and speaking in ways that are so vague that we cannot clearly tell whether their comments are orthodox or not. Then, along comes a statement from Pope Francis that is solid and defends the truth.

We can hear solid truth and have two bad responses. The first bad response is to say, "see, the Pope is holding to the truth, what are you worried about?" The second bad response is to say, "sure, it sounds orthodox, but I'm sure he will deny it tomorrow". The first is foolishly hopeful, and the second is foolishly hopeless. A godly response is to say, "God promises to guide us in the truth, and that is what He is doing now"; that is real hope. In one sense, it does not matter whether Francis is orthodox or not -- that is the beauty of God's promise to protect us; it is not dependent on any one of us. God alone is the One to ensure that we have the truth from an authoritative source (regardless of how faithful or wise that authoritative source actually is).

Do you trust the Lord to provide you with the truth? Do you trust Him to ensure that the truth is spoken to all? This is what we are supposed to do so that we can remain open to the work of the Spirit. When an errant word is spoken, yes, it can be difficult; and none of us is the final interpreter of those things. Yet, something that contradicts the dogmas of the Church will usually be obvious, and whenever someone says he is advancing something "new" in doctrine you can be fairly sure that he is in error. New doctrines is how our separated brethren work (I know, I've been there), but not how the Church works.

Therefore, give thanks to the Lord for protecting us. Give thanks to Him that He still guarantees that truth is spoken even by those who make mistakes in other things that they say. Pray to the Lord that He continues to protect us from errors (especially our own errors!), and guide us into all wisdom. With this kind of faithfulness, we can all rejoice at seeing the Holy Spirit doing His work in our Church, and in our lives.

Coping With Liturgical Abuse

The other day, someone came to me with a comment. It was not a complaint (he was clear about that), but just an observation. He said, "you seem to talk about liturgical abuse quite a lot these days". He actually agreed with everything that I have said, and told me he did not want me to stop bringing it up since it was so important. We had an extended conversation about this fact. I compared the whole thing with how (I suspect) some Russians might have talked about the Communist revolution of 1917 right after it happened. It was all around them and could not be ignored since it impacted their lives so heavily. Another illustration that might be even more poignant is to think about how most people react when they have been diagnosed with cancer. They talk about it often since it is a major issue that has changed their lives.

The first comparison is fitting since it shows an intentional overthrow of an opposing regime. Even without the Schillebeeckx admission that the documents of Vatican II were written with intentional vagueness in order to allow for modernist interpretations, we can still see that much of liturgical abuse is an intentional rejection of the rubrics and an attempt to push things away from Catholic tradition. Many priests were taught to think that breaking the rules is a good thing that pleases God. Some priests even admit it openly and say that they are celebrating Mass with the expectation of their actions being "grandfathered in" to the rubrics in the future. This is clearly an intentional attempt at an overthrow with the purpose of making a "new Church".

The second comparison is fitting even more so, though, because liturgical abuse is genuinely a cancer. The liturgical abuse that is so common today is effectively destroying the faith of Catholics everywhere. It is like a disease and every time that it rears its ugly head, we are forced to struggle with it since it is leading to a degradation of the health of the Church throughout the world. The Church is still indefectible, but that does not mean that certain branches of the Church cannot falter and even die. Parishes can be closed, and Bishops can fall into grave sin; no individual or institution is indefectible in itself, only the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church has the promise.

So what does a priest do who sees the attempt at a new Church and the spreading cancer? Keep quiet about it? That is not faithfulness (nor is it genuine love). He tries to give the most faithful example of Who Christ is; especially in the Mass. You may have heard the protestant thing years ago about "What would Jesus do?" It was based on a book that was genuinely horrendous, but the question is certainly valid. How would Christ Jesus respond to any given circumstance? The Catholic Church has many answers for this, but it also has chosen to give a specific example of it. Every priest is supposed to live "in persona Christi" -- in the person of Christ. Priests are supposed to exemplify what Christ does, and Who He is. People are supposed to be able to look at the priest (especially during the Mass) and see an example of Christ.

If, however, every priest is innovating the actions and words of the Mass (always from what he thinks is better for the people) then the people are going to see and learn from contradicting examples. In principle, it does not matter one tiny bit what I think Jesus would do, or Who I think Jesus is. What matters is how He has revealed Himself through the Church, and one of the ways that the Church has determined for all to see that is through the actions of the priest in the Mass. The rules and rubrics of the Mass are given so that everyone (including the priest himself) can see Christ in action.

If the priest is breaking the rules (either in the Mass, or in his own personal life) and saying it does not matter how we live our lives then that is the "Christ" that he is portraying for the people. He is portraying a Christ Who contradicts Himself; is that the Christ Who came to save us? If that confused rendition of Jesus is what is being portrayed for the laity week after week, should we be surprised if people have a hard time with obeying God? They keep seeing a priest who lives "me first" and eventually are led to follow in that path. Is Christ pleased when His priests lie about Who He is by giving examples of disobedience? What do you think?

What does our Lord do in Heaven when these liturgical abuses happen? Does He say, "it's not that big a deal, so just ignore it and please stop bringing it up in conversation"? Not likely. As a finite human, I cannot imagine how the Lord responds to liturgical abuse (we do know that He got quite upset at in Jerusalem -- He even whipped a few people for it). I can guess at what the devil does, however. He likely smiles with glee. He rubs his hands together and is happy for a disobedience that leads so many astray.

This is why I talk a lot about it these days. It is a cancer that is eating away at our faith; it is the intentional actions of many who wish to overtake the Church and replace it with something else (it appears they want something more protestant). It is something that we must point out and discuss so that we are not led astray ourselves. Pray for your own heart in this (no matter how much you see the truth) so that you will not be deceived. Pray for the conversion of those clergymen who have perpetrated such errors. Pray for the seminary professors who started them down this road. Pray for the people who are still subject to this, that they would see the errors and separate themselves from it. St. Michael the Archangel, defend us in battle.