More, Please

I read that yesterday was "A Day without Gays." It's a great idea. One that should be expanded upon. Can we please have "A Year without Queers"?

Update: A few weeks ago, my seventeen-year-old son got an email from an acquaintance whose sole purpose in sending it was to announce that he is now "openly gay." I find these sorts of mass-mailing confessions to be more than a little strange. It's hard for me to understand the rationale of such declarations of intimate inclinations to the world. I mean, who sends an email to their entire address book to announce that he and his wife have decided to become swingers? It's too much information, and we just don't want to know. Everyone seems to know this, almost instinctively. So how come homosexuals get a pass when they want everyone to know their sexual issues? They want sodomy laws overturned, arguing for a right to privacy in the bedroom, thereby acknowledging that personal sexuality is not a suitable topic for public observation. So why do they need to tell us? I'm for a strict "don't ask, don't tell" policy--I won't ask, and you won't tell, and we'll get along just fine.

On Diversity

Diversity is only a fact of nature, not a virtue.  It's descriptive of God's creative work, but not a human material or spiritual good.  In other words, the Church isn't supposed to mimic nature, but transcend it.  If the diversity in God's universe meant we need diversity in His Church, then the fact that God created more bacteria and viruses than people in His universe would mean that we need more infectious churches.   ...Oh, wait:  that's why we've turned the passing of the peace into An Organized Exchange of Intimacy and Germs with as Many People as Possible.  The Creed makes a better illustration.  We don't profess a belief in "a diverse, holy, Catholic, and apostolic Church" but in "One holy, Catholic, and apostolic Church".  It is unity, rather than diversity, which is a mark of the Church.  Worship is not made more sublime by combining as many dissonant elements as possible in one Mass.

An ethnically diverse parish shouldn't be striving to make the Mass a smorgasbord of cultural contributions; that's the purpose of the ubiquitous potluck.  The Mass ought instead  to reflect the supernatural oneness God desires: ut UNUM sint.  That's another reason for the Mass to be in Latin:  it is a universal language, the Church's own, and belongs as much to one culture as it does another.  It's the ultimate in "inclusive worship:"  armed with a missal in Latin and in his own language, everyone is able to understand the Mass.  Everyone.

The drive for diversity often proceeds from a misguided notion of inclusivity.  It ought to be obvious to people (but apparently isn't) that unfettered diversity does not lead to inclusivity.  There is no way to "include" the "diverse" preferences of ten people at a single Mass, let alone the preferences of hundreds.  Someone is going to be Left Out.  Inclusivity doesn't mean accomodating people's every twitchy whim, but accomodating people as people.  You are included in Mass because you're allowed to come.  

Post-election thought

My thoughts about the election have distilled down to the simple recognition that we got the president we deserve.  Which highlights for me how gracious God is that we didn't get the pope we deserve.

"Be happy for I, the LORD your God am happy" ?

In a recent article in the Idaho Catholic Register (10/17/08), Fr. William Taylor complained that his "deep ... desire [is] to keep everybody happy and, as a result, too often nobody is happy."  I might humbly suggest that perhaps his disappointment with his parishioners' moods might be alleviated by recalling that his vocation as a priest is not to make men happy, but holy.

The Word of God

Here's a test.  It is only a test.  Had this been your medical board exam, you would have been subjected to an exhausting, day-long rigorous assessment.  But it's not.  So relax.  This is only a single question, anyway.  When you read the title, did it bring to mind: a) a book, b) directions from God to an individual, or c) a person?  To those who are tempted to think that Catholics worship (and therefore idolize) statues, I'd like to propose this thought experiment:  if a Catholic were to ask you about the Word of God, and if he were surprised that it brought to your mind the Scriptures instead of the Person of Jesus Christ, how would you defend yourself against the charge of idolatry toward the Scriptures?

OCP's Mission: Confusion

Last year when I heard Dan Schutte was coming to our town to do a concert and workshop at the parish we're registered at (but attend elsewhere), I wrote a few thoughts down about the matter to help clarify my thinking and dissipate my frustration.  I found it this morning when I was cleaning up my documents file.  I hope to have more to say on the subject of liturgical music in a few weeks.

OCP is arguably the most influential liturgical organization in Catholic parishes in the United States, with over 50 percent of parishes using its liturgical and worship materials in their Masses.  It would be difficult to underestimate the impact OCP has on the average parish.  

OCP’s mission statement posted on their web site says: OCP is a self-supporting, not-for-profit, Catholic publishing company whose mission is:  To bring the Gospel of Jesus Christ to all, primarily through the publication of the highest-quality worship programs, spiritually-enriching music and the diocesan newspaper for the State of Oregon....

OCP makes it clear that it is a Catholic organization.  What is not so clear, however, is that all of its available speakers promote a clear and consistent teaching of the Catholic Faith.

OCP sells one of Leonardo Boff’s books, and lists him as one of their speakers available for workshops.  His own website (http://www.leonardoboff.com) says this: “In 1992, under renewed threats of a second punitive action by authorities in Rome, he renounced his activities as a priest and ‘promoted himself the state of laity.’”  It is unclear from his website whether he has received a rescript of laicization from the Holy See.

OCP also lists Dan Schutte as one of their speakers.  

OCP includes him as one of the St. Louis Jesuits, and refers to the time when he was a seminarian, but doesn’t indicate on the biography of Dan Schutte that he no longer functions as a priest.  His own website (linked from OCP) mentions his seminary days and refers to “Dan and the other St. Louis Jesuits", but is quiet on the subject of whether he still retains priestly faculties.)  A call to OCP confirmed that “he is no longer a priest.”  It may be that OCP is trying to avoid scandal, but since Dan Schutte is widely known as an “ex-priest”, it comes across as an attempt to hide the incongruity of his presumed laicization with his prominent roles as a composer of Catholic liturgical music, singer and teacher.  

The OCP website announces:

The music of Dan Schutte continues to be part of the standard repertoire for Christian worship worldwide. He is one of the best-known, most prolific and influential composers of Catholic music for the liturgy. 

Marty Haugen, one of their popular composers who is not a Catholic, does not appear in the list of available speakers.  This suggests that listing Dan Schutte and Leonardo Boff as available speakers was not merely an oversight on the part of OCP.  

Our parish has scheduled a concert and workshop with Mr. Schutte in late February.  The bishop has given his approval to OCP products and services and Dan Schutte is an approved speaker for OCP, so there is nothing standing in the way of his leading a workshop and giving a concert at our parish, and no room for discussion:  he has the approval of the Church.   Removing him from OCP’s approved list of speakers would give those who are scandalized by his music and life a chance to address the suitability of his teaching a workshop at our parish on its own merits.

In this day when prayers go up from nearly every parish for more vocations, why would we hold up before our sons as an example one who was ordained a priest, but no longer functions as a priest?  Is this the example of perseverence in the Faith we want to convey?

Why is so much Catholic liturgical music  (some written by non-Catholics) acceptable music in protestant churches?  It may be that protestant churches are moving quickly to adopt Catholic theology and liturgy.  But it is more likely that there is nothing deeply Catholic about much of the music OCP produces.

OCP sells music by a group called Scarecrow and the Tinmen, which is a reference to characters in the Wizard of Oz.  Their music “incorporates progressive and classic rock ideas while also skillfully blending acoustic elements and even hip-hop influences” according to OCP. The band’s “front man” on lead vocals and keyboards admits "I didn't have much formal training, but I enjoyed picking out melodies and writing instrumental music.”  It is difficult to see where this fits in with the stated mission of OCP to publish the “highest-quality worship programs.”

One of Dan Schutte’s most (in)famous songs begins, “Let us build the city of God.” [emphasis added] There is no mention of God helping us build anything in this song, let alone being the Builder Himself.

Contrast that with Pope Benedict XVI in his recent encyclical, Spe Salvi:

“There is no doubt, therefore, that a “Kingdom of God” accomplished without God—a kingdom therefore of man alone—inevitably ends up as the “perverse end” of all things.”

More than Rules

A certain argument for liturgical license that has been put forth to me more than once is that "Christianity is more than just obeying a bunch of rules--it's about relationship"!  Okay.  I'm willing to grant that.  But can we also agree that the primary relationship is between Christ and the Christian?  And that Christ is God, and that the Christian is not?  And that in any relationship between God and a man, God alone has the authority to dictate the terms of that relationship?  So what does God say about this relationship?  "If you love me, you will keep my commandments." (Jn 14:15) Not "If you love me, you should keep my commandments," but "you will keep my commandments."  Keeping God's commandments is a necessary (though not sufficient) part of loving God, of having a relationship with Him.  Christianity is certainly more than "just obeying a bunch of rules"--but it has to start there.  And part of obeying God is humble obedience to the legitimate demands of the legitimate authorities he has put over us.  For Catholics, the rubrics of the liturgy are part of that.

What I Do.

In case it's interesting to anyone out there.  

I work with children and youth on drug abuse awareness, teen pregnancy avoidance, emotional health (e.g., self-control, healthy self-image, etc.) issues, life skills, developing healthy eating and exercise habits, and building healthy relationships.  I also oversee their academic education.  I try to make their lives as normal and secure and loving as possible.  I am their mother, and I am married to their father.  It's an unusual approach, but it works.

Beauty Is NOT in the Eye of the Beholder

"Beauty is in the eye of the beholder" seems like a sweet idea.  It evokes images of people who aren't particularly physically attractive, but have hearts of gold.  It gives us the superior feeling of being more discerning than the average person, of not judging by "mere appearances." 

But it's really just poison with a sweet perfume.  To say with Hume that "beauty in things exists merely in the mind which contemplates them" is to say that there is nothing we call beauty which exists as an independent, objective quality or attribute of a thing. Which is another way of saying that God (being transcendent) is not beautiful, although some of us may have beautiful feelings about Him.

Beauty, like truth, is a transcendental thing.  And all Beauty, all Truth, all Goodness, and perfect Unity is found in God.  No reasonable person defends himself against the charge of bearing false witness with the argument that "truth is in the mind of the thinker."  No parent, telling his child to "be good" would consider that "Goodness is whatever the child thinks it is." So also with Beauty.  It's no good trying to discuss whether something is beautiful with statements such as, "I like it," or, "it moves me," or, "I think it's pretty."

To the extent that things conform to and reflect the Beauty of God, they are beautiful. Thus, the criteria for judging Beauty are found in God Himself. God is a God of order.  Therefore, disorderly things are not beautiful. God is not an abstraction; He is real. It could even be said that He is Reality.  So we have the principle that abstract "art" is not beautiful.  (Although, to be fair, the purpose of the artist in producing abstract art is not to make something  beautiful, although he is presumably trying to communicate something about another transcendental quality.) 

For another time:  Beauty & Architecture, Beauty & Liturgical Music

Divorce: It's All About ME!

In the US, divorce is not the unforgivable sin, it is the unrepented sin.  Somehow, people seem to feel that divorce is sanitized by getting an annulment, as if that makes everything squeaky clean and paves the way to marry Honey #2. It doesn't seem to enter people's minds that, having brought children into the world -- whether in a marriage or outside of one -- they are responsible for them, and that responsibility involves putting aside one's own feelings to meet the needs of the children.  Somehow, in their eagerness to assert their rights and proclaim their innocence, the children are trampled underfoot.  The children's world has just been turned upside down, and their parents blithely tell people that "everything is okay with the children; they are doing fine; both of us make a point to tell them we still love them."  It sure doesn't look like that from the perspective of the children.  They now have to be perpetual gypsies, moving back and forth from one house to the other.  (Two houses, two sets of rules, two worlds.  And they're expected to navigate easily between the two.) They've learned that no matter how much someone says he  is committed to his wife or children, no one will publicly question his decision to break up his family, let alone assert that he is selfish and despicable for not keeping his word.  (Of course, it goes without saying that the same goes for "her.") They've learned that they are a lower priority than their parents' agendas:  Mom and Dad are both wrapped up in their legal and canonical wranglings, finding Honey #2, and separating one household into two (who gets the West African death mask we bought in 1994?).

Every parent knows in his heart that divorce is bad for children. (Even psychologists are starting to recognize it.)  It used to be that parents wouldn't divorce "for the sake of the children."  They had a sense of responsibility to their children, and willingly sacrificed their own "fulfillment."  That whole thing about being thrown into the sea wearing a millstone necklace being a better option than stumbling a child was taken seriously.  These days the decision to divorce is often made independent of the consideration of its impact on the children.  (Of course, if physical abuse is involved, that is a proportionately grave reason for a divorce... but not necessarily for entering into another marriage.)

Who Should Be a Part of Whose Life?

I've been told many times (usually in a homily) that God needs to be part of my life.  It doesn't quite sound right.  Kinda like, "I have the active part of my life, the intellectual part of my life, the social part of my life, and the God part of my life."  I want what the saints had:  to be completely devoted to God.  And not just that.  To be in Christ. Not even just to belong to Him, but to be taken up into His Life.  To be part of His Life.  That's better:  We should strive to be part of God's Life, rather than to make Him part of ours.  

God is Love - I John 5.8

It is one of the simplest and most familiar phrases in the Bible.  It has also been, for some reason, one of the most difficult for me to make any sense of.  God is loving.  Okay, I get that.  But God is Love sounds like an invitation to worship at the altar of eroticism.  I think I finally made some progress in my understanding when I started from the other direction.  Man is not Love.  But man can be loving.  Man cannot be love, he can only do loving things.  ("This is love, that we follow His commandments." II John 1.6)  Man's love is therefore, ephemeral and transitory, because as soon as he ceases to act in love, his love vanishes.  Only God's love is eternal, because the part of God we reflect in loving actions, resides as a Thing in God Himself.  A man can preach the Word of God.  In some sense he becomes the Word to other men.  But if he stops preaching, he is no longer the Word to other men because the Word does not (this side of Heaven) reside in him as an eternal essence.   He can bring God's salvation to other men.  But he himself is not that salvation.

Suffering & the Sorrowful Mysteries

While saying the rosary with my husband the other day, it occurred to me that each of the first four sorrowful mysteries represents a different mode of suffering.  The agony in the garden reflects the pain of anticipation of suffering, as when there's a root canal on the schedule later in the week. The scourging at the pillar is clearly a physically painful suffering.  The crowning with thorns, although certainly involving a great deal of physical pain, seems to emphasize the suffering of humiliation.  The carrying of the cross was the bearing of a large burden, the weight of the heavy cross and our even heavier sins.  (I'd say this is the kind of suffering one experiences when his child is in pain.) The fifth mystery, the crucifixion, is a synthesis of all four modes or kinds of suffering: anticipation (of complete separation from God: "My God, why have you abandoned Me?"), physical pain (duh!), humiliation (punished as a criminal, strung up naked, and derided by those passers-by and the others crucified with Him), and bearing a burden (the consummation of His identification with our sins and the punishment attached to them).