Fr Z responds to something in LATimes

From the LA Times:

Father John Zuhlsdorf, who runs a blog called Father Z, repeatedly labeled Martin a “homosexualist activist” and called for Catholic institutions not to host him.

Look, I may getting older and I have monsignor moments, but I don’t remember ever doing that. Let me clarify.

First, the LATimes did not contact me and, if they did, I am unaware.

I have attached the “label” to Martin, sure.

Have I, repeatedly or otherwise, “called for Catholic institutions not to host” Fr. Martin?

In my most recent post, all I did was ask questions. HERE  Here’s what I wrote.

REMEMBER: I was concerned about a speaker at a seminary.   Yes, this is also at Catholic University, but I don’t care as much about the university.  The major seminary was my concern.  I wrote:

I’ll grant you that a speaker might be capable of addressing more issues than just his primary focus.  But there is no way around the fact that, right now at least, when Fr. Martin’s name comes up, the first thing you think is activist for a homosexualist agenda.

I don’t get it.

If I were a bishop or an alumnus of Theological College, I’d have some questions.

What message are they trying to send?

What are they promoting by this move?

What are they teaching those seminarians?

I don’t think there’s anything wrong with those questions.

I asked them then.  I’d ask them again.

The moderation queue is ON.

Posted in Linking Back | Tagged ,
48 Comments

MASS FOR BENEFACTORS

Right now… 4pm Rome time.

Posted in SESSIUNCULA |
2 Comments

Approval from author’s superiors doesn’t mean a book is good.

03_05_14_Gesu_Zwingli_book_detRecent controversy has brought canonist Ed Peters to shed some light on the meaning of some technical terms which are being bandied about.

Lately some dust has been stirred up by the homosexualist activist Jesuit Fr. James Martin, who published a slithery book about homosexuality. When challenged about the veracity and propriety of some of the things he wrote, Martin repeats that the book was approved by his superiors. That’s holds water about as effectively as a screen door on a submarine.

Let’s have a look at what Peters says about ecclesiastical approval of texts for publication. My emphases and comments.

About Fr. Martin’s Book

Defending his book, Building a Bridge (2017), Jesuit Father James Martin claims that its consistency with Church teaching is attested to by (A) his own good standing as a priest, and (B) the canonical approval the book received from his Jesuit superior.

Martin’s first claim, that he is a priest in good standing, is neither contested nor relevant to the question of whether his book is doctrinally sound or pastorally trustworthy. [There’s also Peters’ emphasis there.]

Martin’s second claim, that his book enjoys canonical approval, requires some context before one can appreciate what that means—and doesn’t mean.

The Roman Catholic Church’s canonical discipline on publishing materials related to faith and morals is found chiefly in Canons 822-832 and focuses on two well-known markers of doctrinal orthodoxy and pastoral suitability, namely, the “nihil obstat” (a theologian’s certification that nothing obstructs faith or morals per 1983 CIC 830 § 2) and the “imprimatur” (a local ordinary’s determination that the writings may be responsibly published per 1983 CIC 830 § 3). [NB] The nihil obstat does not imply that everything in a text is stated correctly, but rather, is concerned with whether anything is stated wrongly; [That’s an important distinction.] the imprimatur does not imply that a book is actually good or helpful, but rather, asks whether it is a bad idea to publish it. [and not whether it ought to be published.] Throughout the process, authors and their works are generally, and understandably, viewed benignly (e.g., 1983 CIC 212).  [Any decent censor librorum (the guy appointed by a bishop or an order to read stuff and check for doctrinal errors will tell you that it’s not their job to clean up style or make improvements.  They have a narrow job.]

Martin’s book, though falling within the categories for which a nihil obstat and an imprimatur are expressly recommended (1983 CIC 827 § 3), [not “required”] does not, in my opinion, require such certifications and he is within the law to have published it without them. Of course, the lack of these common certifications is hardly evidence of the soundness of his work.

Martin’s book does have what it is required to have, namely, a religious superior’s “permission to publish” (imprimi potest), a clearance all members of institutes of consecrated life must obtain prior to publishing these sorts of materials. Instructions issued in 1992 by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith expect religious superiors, prior to issuing their permission for publication, to consult with at least one trustworthy theologian about whether anything in a book such as Martin’s is harmful to the faith or morals. Martin himself might or might not know whether this prior theological review was actually carried out but Fr. John Cercero, sj, the superior who granted permission for Martin to publish his book, would certainly know. [See below.  Apparently the SJs released a statement about this.]

But let’s assume that a qualified censor cleared the content of Martin’s book whereupon his superior concluded for its general prudence. Does that mean that Martin’s opinions and views are, as he seems to claim, necessarily acceptable in the Church?

No.

First, there are notorious examples of quite unworthy books boasting ecclesiastical approval until the faithful’s consternation over such aberrations finally gets someone’s attention somewhere and the approvals are withdrawn. The decade-and-a-half argument over Wilhelm’s Christ Among Us (1968), which lost its imprimatur in 1984 after Roman intervention, lingers in Catholic conscientiousness to this day.

Second, and more importantly, and notwithstanding some “hyperbole” (CLSA New Comm. at 984) in the CDF instruction about ecclesiastical approval constituting a “juridical and moral guarantee”, the nihil obstat, the imprimatur, and the imprimi potest are, in the end, judgment calls made by ecclesiastical officers about how authors have presented their views on important (and often complex) Church teachings and practices, and are not themselves infallible exercises of the Church’s teaching office. One would like to think, of course, that all Church officers are qualified for and committed to performing their duties in this area but, even without reaching the extreme cases recalled above, differing analytic approaches can be followed and old-fashioned mistakes can and do happen in the course of such reviews.

So, Martin’s book apparently does not have a standard nihil obstat or imprimatur; it might or might not have a Jesuit theologian’s in-house certification of its avoidance of doctrinal error; it does have a Jesuit superior’s indication that, in his view, the book can be prudently published.

[NB] Thus, in short, to tout a religious superior’s imprimi potest as proof of one’s personal or authorial orthodoxy is to misconstrue what that certification is and what it means.

Update (same day): Martin’s superiors have just released a statement indicating that his book did go through a theological analysis. They do not identify who performed that assessment, but then, the new law does not require disclosure of that name, as was generally required under the old law. The canonical commentary I offered above applies as I indicated.

So, now you know a little more about the technical terms that are in the wind right now.

Bottom line: Just because there is a nihil obstat or an imprimi potest, that doesn’t mean that what’s between the covers is good.  As a matter of fact, it could be dreadful.

Posted in "How To..." - Practical Notes, The Drill | Tagged , , ,
12 Comments

Rome – Day 4-5: Beautiful Masses

On Friday evening at Santa Maria sopra Minerva there was a beautiful Mass for which the ministers were of the Institute of Christ the King. There were a great many of the faithful present, including clerics… yes… they belong to the faithful too.

IMG_5592

And then there’s this.  Mass isn’t all we do.

Moreover, on 14 Sept there was a highly Roman Mass in Madison, celebrated by His Excellency Most Rev. Robert C. Morlino, the Extraordinary Ordinary, with a special participation of the Knights and Ladies of the Holy Sepulcher.

This, friends, is what is up in Madison, in accord with Summorum Pontificum.

17_09_15_PontMass_Exalt_01

17_09_15_PontMass_Exalt_02

17_09_15_PontMass_Exalt_08

17_09_15_PontMass_Exalt_05

17_09_15_PontMass_Exalt_06

17_09_15_PontMass_Exalt_07

Meanwhile, back in Rome, today we had a procession from the Chiesa Nuova to San Pietro where there was a Mass at the faldstool.  I am sure lots of photos will be forthcoming, for everyone was clicking away at the beautiful sights and sounds.

?


After Mass I went to a luncheon.  There were a great number of wonderful people from all over the world.  He is the head of Una Voce Japan!  I look forward to visiting them soon.

I also had a wonderful discussion with a priest who served in Hong Kong.  The great Juventutem group in Hungary was well represented and I got know many more people from all over.  Meeting people is one of the pleasures of this annual event.

Card. Burke blessing the food before lunch.  With him are reps of Una Voce.

Those are a few glimpses of the day.  I am sure there will be more forthcoming.

UPDATE:

A shots I received from the procession.  Yes, the lenses are range appropriate.  In the other, I am simply adjusting the biretta.

Screen Shot 2017-09-17 at 00.37.33

♫♫Deh benedici, o Madre, al grido della fe’,
noi vogliam Dio, ch’è nostro Padre,
noi vogliam Dio, ch’è nostro Re.
noi vogliam Dio, ch’è nostro Padre,
noi vogliam Dio, ch’è nostro Re.♫♫

Screen Shot 2017-09-17 at 00.36.26

Posted in "How To..." - Practical Notes, Liturgy Science Theatre 3000, On the road, What Fr. Z is up to | Tagged , ,
10 Comments

Theologican College (seminary) asks Jesuit Fr. James Martin NOT to speak at event

Today I arose to messages that Theological College, an important major seminary with national prominence in Washington DC, had decided to withdraw an invitation to homosexualist activist and Jesuit Fr. James Martin, to speak at their “Alumni Days”.

Since I am deeply concerned about the situation of vocations to the priesthood in the USA, I had posted here about that event and I had asked some sincere questions.  HERE

Hence, while I am sure that it was a difficult situation for TC, I believe they did the right thing in reviewing their decision.   I trust that it was made in the course of a discussion.

Fr. Martin issued a statement of his own on Facebook (where else?):

Fr. James Martin, SJ

Dear friends: Theological College, the seminary at The Catholic University of America, in Washington, DC, today cancelled a talk I was to give on Alumni Day, on Oct. 4, thanks to a campaign by Church Militant, the priest known as “Father Z” and Lifesite News.  [I did NOT campaign for anything.  I didn’t ask anyone to call TC.  I asked some questions.  Period.]

Those campaigns can be seen, in part, here:
https://www.churchmilitant.com/…/homosexualist-james-martin…
here:
https://www.lifesitenews.com/…/catholic-seminary-invites-ga…
and here:
https://zuhlsdorf.computer/…/should-a-seminary-headline-a-homosexua…/

That campaign caused a storm of phone calls, emails and messages to Theological College, which included, I was told, people screaming at the receptionists who answered the phone. In the end, they felt that the expected protests and negative publicity would distract from Alumni Day.  [I sincerely hope that none of you readers were rude to receptionists at TC.  That’s beneath your dignity and, frankly, not behavior that one should expect of Catholics shaped by tradition and “class”.]

This follows the cancellation of another lecture at the Annual Investiture Dinner of the Order of the Holy Sepulchre in New York City, scheduled on Oct. 21. The organizers told me that they had received angry emails and calls from several members of the Order, most of whom, they believed, were encouraged to protest thanks to another campaign initiated by Church Militant, which you can see here: https://www.churchmilitant.com/…/episode/vortex-unbelievable

As an aside, a few years ago I was invited to join the Order of the Holy Sepulchre, but couldn’t because of its steep entrance fee. Also, Catholic University hosted me for a talk, one of a few that I have given there, just last year.

That follows an earlier cancellation of a lecture in London for Cafod (Catholic International Development Charity in England) which was scheduled for the third week in October.

Each of these cancellations was a result of anger or fear over my book “Building a Bridge,” about LGBT Catholics. The book has the formal approval (the “Imprimi Potest”) of my Jesuit Provincial, the Very Rev. John Cecero, SJ; and has been endorsed by Cardinal Joseph Tobin, Cardinal Kevin Farrell, Archbishop John Wester, Bishop Robert McElroy and Bishop John Stowe.  [All of which is irrelevant.]

In the case of Theological College, the fears were of angry protesters disrupting their Alumni Day. In the case of the Order of the Holy Sepulchre Dinner, it was anger from some members over the topic of LGBT Catholics. In the case of Cafod lecture in London, it was not a response to any campaign but fear that my presence itself would garner negative attention, after the group had recently faced other similar problems. In none of these cases was the local ordinary–in each a cardinal–in any way advocating for the cancellation of the talk. The impetus was purely from those social media sites.

I have asked each organization to be honest about the reasons for these cancellations. That is, I told them I did not want to lie and say, “I withdrew” or “I declined” or “I was afraid to come.”

So I share with you as much as I can in the interests of transparency, which we need in our church. And to show you the outsize influence of social media sites motivated by fear, hatred and homophobia.  [Rubbish.  He is a public figure.  He defends even homosexual acts, not just homosexuals as human beings.  He is, right now, a lightning rod.]

For my part, I bear no ill will to Theological College, Catholic University, the Order of the Holy Sepulchre or Cafod. The organizers were all apologetic and in some cases more upset than I was. I know that they were under extreme pressure, and in some cases were overwhelmed by the rage that can be generated by social media: ill will based on misrepresentations, innuendos, homophobia and especially fear. Perfect love drives out fear, as St. Paul said. But perfect fear also drives out love.

Also, I want to say that none of these cancellations disturbs me.[And yet, here we are, reading this.] I’ve not lost any sleep over them. (The outsize influence of social media sites that traffic in homophobia, specialize in personal attacks, and whips up hatred another matter. This is disturbing and should be disturbing to all of us. It is not coming from God.)

And there will be many other venues. In fact, after the talk in DC was cancelled, Holy Trinity Church in DC invited me to deliver a lecture a few days before the planned Theological College event was to occur, on Sept. 30. So I look forward to seeing you all in Washington.

I’m also happy to say that a revised and expanded version of “Building a Bridge,” with a new introduction, more stories drawn from my encounters with LGBT people, more insights from church leaders, and more biblical meditations, will be published early next year.

Last night at the University of Scranton, after the talk to the incoming freshmen, a mother approached the book-signing table, and started to cry when she talked about her gay son and what the book had meant to her. And I told her that her tears put any opposition in perspective.  [Emotions are a huge factor in this issue.  Often they trump reason.]

Because what is opposition next to the love of Jesus? It is nothing.

I also have the support of my Jesuit Provincial, my Jesuit brothers, and two cardinals and several bishops who endorsed my book (as well as many other cardinals, archbishops and bishops who have contacted me privately). Most of all, I want to say that Jesus is close to me in prayer.

So I am at total peace.

A final note: all of the talks that were cancelled–at Theological College, at the Order of the Holy Sepulchre Investiture Dinner, and at Cafod, were not about LGBT Catholics. They were about Jesus.

I’ve turned off the combox for this.

 

Posted in SESSIUNCULA | Tagged , ,
2 Comments

Rome – Day 4: TRAVEL VESTMENTS STARTED!

Today I delivered the last of the fabric – Shantung – to Gammarelli for the travel vestments.

The combinations will be:

White (gold trim) & Red (silver)
Black (silver) & Green (silver)
Violet (silver) & Rose (silver)
White (gold) & Blue (silver)

There will be enough fabric for miniature reversible Roman antependiums!

I remind readers that, if there are donors for vestments, I will make sure your name is either embroidered on the vestment somewhere, or at least on the small “envelope” that I will make for each one.  You will be remembered in prayer.  One of you has already sent a donation, which allowed me to get the fabric and get this started, and another has said that a donation is on the way by snail mail.

A reversible travel vestment, in two colors, with all the parts from Gammarelli will be about €600 (c. $715).

So, the project is now officially underway!

While out and about, I saw that the Italian Military Ordinariate now has a little church near to where I was in seminary, a chapel dedicated to the Holy Shroud that was a national chapel for the Piemontesi in Rome

Just for fun.

An inscription inside S. Maria sopra Minerva, in case one of you would like to test your Latin powers.

More later.

UPDATE:

In the Church of St. Agnes in the Piazza Navona, you find a chapel with the baptismal font in which St. Francis of Rome (a favorite) was baptized.

St. Agnes met her end in a dramatic way.  Accounts vary, but you would probably not want to endure it.

I loathe the dopey little Roman palls, just a little bit of starched linen.

I much prefer the sturdier pall.

Today on the feast of Mary, Our Lady of Sorrows.

In situ.

 

Posted in On the road, What Fr. Z is up to | Tagged
6 Comments

Coverage of Summorum Pontificum conference for 10th anniversary

The conference for the 10th anniversary of Summorum Pontificum has received some coverage.

For example, there is a highly tendentious and partial piece from AP, predictably from Nichole Winfield.

This is ludicrous and incomplete.

17_09_15_AP_SP_conf_Nicole

 

 

First, I am pretty sure she’s wrong about Pope Francis being “ignored” by the first speakers. (I was there.)  She may have not been entirely cognizant of the theme of the conference.

Second, she also seems not to be aware that there was an afternoon session with other speakers, such as Card. Sarah. Note that the photo caption even misspells Card. Sarah’s name. So much for anything accurate or impartial from AP/Winfield.

The next time you see something from her about anything having to do with the Catholic Church, yawn and turn the page.

Another version comes from John Allen of CRUX, who was there. HERE He even mentions what Card. Sarah said about Pope Francis!  His story is not what I would have written, but it is not unfair.  Some of Allen’s piece with my usual additions:

Sarah, now 72, spoke for almost an hour, and here’s what seems to be the bottom line on where he stands: If anyone expects Sarah now to go gentle into that good night, muting his strenuous defense of liturgical tradition, they can forget it.

[…]

Yet equally, if anyone expected Sarah to go to war against his boss, subtly or not-so-subtly suggesting Francis is the problem – as some in the crowd gathered on Thursday have publicly argued he is – they can forget that too.

At several points during his address, Sarah explicitly described Summorum Pontificum as something Benedict initiated and that “Pope Francis has continued.” Never referring to the new motu proprio on translation, Sarah certainly didn’t come anywhere close to criticizing it.

In other words, the take-away seemed to be that Sarah plans to remain precisely what he’s been up to this point – a hero in some ways to the more traditionalist wing of the Church, which gave him loud and sustained applause on Thursday, but not the leader of the in-house opposition.  [Perhaps the reason why he is so respected by the “traditionalist wing” is because we have read his books!]

[…]

As he often does, Sarah offered a strong plug for celebrating the Mass ad orientem, meaning with both the priest and the people facing East towards the altar, and ultimately, towards God. He called it a gesture that was “almost universally presumed in the antique forms of the Roman rite, rendered freely accessible by Benedict XVI for those who desire to use it.”

However, Sarah said, “this beautiful antique practice, so eloquent about the primacy of the all-powerful God, isn’t restricted just to the antique rite.

“It’s permitted and encouraged, and, I would insist, pastorally advantageous, in the more modern form of the Roman rite.”

On the importance of small things, such as the vessels used during the Catholic Mass, Sarah cited the example of two American seminarians who once brought him the chalice he was to use before Mass and asked him to bless it before they placed it near the altar, calling that a “very moving” touch. [That was a great moment.  AND, I must add, something to which the organizers of the conference ought to reflect on.  The organizers gave not even a MINUTE of time to American (North or South) speakers in this conference.  That was a dreadful slight.] 

Taking up the theme of his recent book, Sarah delivered a strong plea for greater silence in worship, calling it “the first act of sacred service.”

Sarah also underlined what he described as the “many young people discovering this liturgical form, who feel attracted by it and find it a form particularly appropriate for them. [That that to Thomas Reese, EthJay.]

“They encounter the mystery of the Holy Eucharist,” Sarah said, “which is more and more a key virtue for them in the modern world.”

Sarah conceded that “many in my generation struggle to understand this,” but insisted that “I can give personal testimony to the sincerity and dedication of this younger generation of priests and laity, and then many good vocations to the priest and consecrated life born in communities using the antique rite.”  [Hopefully, superiors and bishops will WAKE UP.]

If anyone doubts that, Sarah urged them to “visit these communities, get to know them, especially the young who are part of them.

Open your hearts and minds to these young brothers and sisters, and look at the good they do,” he said. “They’re not nostalgic or oppressed by the ecclesiastical battles of recent decades, they’re full of joy to live life with Christ amid the challenges of the modern world.

Sarah issued a direct appeal to his brother bishops to be open to people attached to the older Mass and more traditional customs and observances.  [Everybody wins!]

“These communities need paternal care,” he said, “and we must not allow personal preferences or misunderstandings that keep the faithful away who adhere to the extraordinary form of the Roman rite. We bishops and priests are called to be instruments of reconciliation and communion in the Church for all the Christian faithful, and I humbly ask you, in the one faith we have in common and in accord with the words of Benedict XVI and Pope Francis, to generously open your hearts to allow in everything the faith offers, and to create space for it.”

Statistically, he conceded, these people may remain “a small part of the life of the Church,” [“growing”] but that, he said, “doesn’t make them inferior or second-class.”

[…]

Finally, Sarah issued a challenge to his audience, asking that they stop calling themselves “traditionalists,” and stop allowing others to refer to them that way.  [NB]

“You’re not enclosed in a box, or in a library or museum of curiosities,” he said. “You’re not ‘traditionalists.’ You’re Catholics of the Roman rite, like me, like the Holy Father, not second-class citizens in the Catholic Church because of your cult and spiritual practices.”  [TRUE!  However, “traditional” or “traditionalist” (like liberal and conservative) are handy shorthand.]

Those practices, he pointed out, were also those of “innumerable saints.”

He told the group that it should not become “enclosed or withdrawn into a ghetto, which an attitude of defensiveness dominates, and suffocates your witness to the world of today to which you are sent.

“Ten years later,” he said, referring to the Summorum Pontificum anniversary, “If we haven’t broken the chains of the traditionalist ghetto yet, do it today!” [Do I hear an “Amen!”?]

[…]

He goes on to mention some remarks of Card. Müller about translations.  That was in interesting moment!

 

Posted in Biased Media Coverage, SUMMORUM PONTIFICUM | Tagged , ,
17 Comments

A priest on what saying the Traditional Mass meant to him

priestI received this note from a priest:

Just a quick note to say you and the others attending the pilgrimage/conference were in my prayers this morning, joined at the sacred altar (thankfully in the Extraordinary Form on both sides of the ocean!). What an important anniversary this is for the whole Church — for those of us who know and recognize it, for those still to learn, and even for those who presently resist the value of tradition.  [Do I hear an “Amen!”?]

This anniversary is also a personal one for me since ten years ago today was my first time to offer the Extraordinary Form, a Solemn High Mass which I was able to pull off thanks to the dedication and the assistance of kind Fraternity priests who helped me prepare, served as deacon and subdeacon, and provided the infrastructure (MC, altar boys, schola). Knowing it was my first time to offer that Mass, some lay faithful asked my reactions and reflections afterwards. I could honestly say then and now that I have never felt more like a priest than at that Mass. The need for the priest, the role of a priest, what a priest does is not more clear than in the Extraordinary Form, and particularly in a Solemn High Mass. It was a grace that has impacted me ever since and has led to my further familiarity with the EF and with its theology and the theology of the priesthood. It has come with some challenge — as I predicted it would — not just from folks who are adversaries but also an internal challenge because I find myself more interested in a tradition I have been denied. [Yes.  We’ve all been robbed of our patrimony.] Thus, offering the Novus Ordo most days is not what I would prefer. But brick by brick… [And I suspect that learning to say the traditional form now informs your Novus Ordo ars celebrandi.]

Though I have seen much of the world (in my NAC days), I am not much of a traveler, but perhaps some day I will make it a point to participate in the pilgrimage/conference.

Thanks for all you do to raise awareness of the EF and promote it far and wide!

And thanks to Pope Benedict XVI for his courage and his vision in giving the Church Summorum Pontificum!  [Do I hear an “Amen!”?]

Thanks, Father, for the great note.  I believe you are not alone in your experience.

Posted in Mail from priests | Tagged
5 Comments

A young writer tries to figure out Pope Francis’ harsh words for “traditionalists”

A couple of days ago Amerika Magazine, a Jesuit organ, there was a rather thoughtful piece by a young man about his experience of the Vetus Ordo, the Extraordinary Form, the “Tridentine” form of Mass in the Roman Rite. Here is some of it, with my comments and emphases:

Is Pope Francis right about traditionalists who love the Latin Mass?  [The answer is clearly “No”.  It is also clearly “Yes”.  “Traditionalists” embraces a large number of people and they are not homogeneous, by any stretch of the imagination.  They’re just plain “folks”.]

As part of their efforts to draw us into a deeper faith life, my parents brought me and my brothers to a Tridentine Mass when we were kids. I do not recall being particularly impressed the first few times. One summer Sunday, however, I decided to attend one on my own, mostly for a change of pace from my home parish. This particular Sunday turned out to be the Feast of Corpus Christi, and I was caught off guard by the sheer spectacle of the ritual.

I briefly resented that the hymns and processions would keep me in church longer than I had originally planned, but I was soon overwhelmed by a feeling that I can best describe as communion. This was, I mused, the Mass as it was experienced by so many saints throughout history. [Let’s add a note here.  The older form of Mass has a pretty good track record in nourishing the lives of saints.  The newer form doesn’t have a track record yet.] Although there was no one in the pews around me, I began to feel as though I was surrounded by the saints who had come to know and worship God through this liturgy. I did not at that point understand that the rituals of the Mass had changed numerous times over the two millennia of Christian history, but learning about these changes never made me doubt the core of my experience that day. [Sure, the rites changed.  However, they were stable in their basics for those two millennia and stable in their particulars for the last 5 or centuries.]

Last year, Pope Francis spoke openly about his misgivings about liturgical traditionalists in an interview that would serve as an introduction of a book of his sermons as Archbishop of Buenos Aires:

I always try to understand what’s behind the people who are too young to have lived the pre-conciliar liturgy but who want it. Sometimes I’ve found myself in front of people who are too strict, who have a rigid attitude. And I wonder: How come such a rigidity? Dig, dig, this rigidity always hides something: insecurity, sometimes even more…. Rigidity is defensive. True love is not rigid.  [Neither is true love inclined to judge so severely large swaths of people.]

I have been pondering this statement since I first read it. I wondered whether I was the sort of person he had in mind. Was I a “rigid” Catholic? The experience of being surrounded by the saints at the Latin Mass was one of the most profound and formative spiritual experiences of my teenage years.

I have also been thinking about the pope’s words because his struggle to understand young traditionalists echoes the suspicions held by many older Catholics who lived through the Second Vatican Council, particularly priests. (Plus, the pope has recently reaffirmed his commitment to the liturgical reform of Vatican II, saying it is “irreversible.”)  [Which is, of course, his desire and not something that he can command.]

My experience with the Latin Mass offers one possible answer to Pope Francis’ questions about why young people are attracted to traditional liturgies: Having grown up with the Mass in English, these young Catholics have a vague sense of what any given moment in the Mass is about. The unfamiliar rituals and language of the Tridentine Rite, however, allows them to see these moments with fresh eyes. Discovering the Latin Mass is, to many members of my generation, what the introduction of the vernacular Mass was to people like Francis. [This young feller is fairly thoughtful.  He turned the sock inside out.  Good for him.  However, if he continues to ask around among those who experienced the liturgical changes and, often, chaos of the 60’s and 70’s, he will find that many will say that, when they first experienced Mass with the vernacular they had a hard time recognizing their Mass.  Instead of becoming more “understandable”, it became less so.  Of course they were able to understand the words, but that’s not the same as understanding what is going on during Mass.]

As for the “strict” and “rigid” people about whose insecurities Pope Francis frets, he is clearly not referring to everyone who wants the option of attending the pre-conciliar liturgy. Although some of my friends will wrinkle their noses at certain kinds of homilies or deviations from the liturgical rubrics, their tastes are hardly worthy of a psychiatrist’s couch. They do not need anyone to “dig” into their psyches. Love of God and neighbor runs at least as deeply in them as it does in me, even if that love manifests sometimes in Latin prayers.

To whom, then, is Pope Francis referring? The answer may lie in Francis’ own past. As the Jesuit provincial and later the rector of the Jesuit seminary in Argentina, Jorge Bergoglio was known as a strict and formidable figure, and he had a sizeable following among the members of his province. But his critiques of traditionalist Catholic groups are seldom read through that lens.  [I’m not so sure.  I think quite a few of us went there when he made those remarks.  And let’s not forget that, in those same years which the writer mentions, Fr. Bergoglio also prompted division.]

When the pope suggests that strictness and rigidity conceal insecurity, he may be speaking about people he once knew quite well or even about himself. Francis’ former inflexibility ought to give much more credibility to his warnings about the pitfalls of modern traditionalism. Traditionalists do not take his criticisms as seriously as they probably ought to. But without any additional context, Pope Francis’ statements sound less like pastoral advice and more like the perennial lamentation of older generations about trends among the young.

The same can be said about many of the admonitions I have heard from the Vatican II generation about the flaws of the pre-conciliar church. It was not until I had extended conversations with these Catholics that the depth and relevance of their experience became clear. If I had not taken the time to listen and ask questions, all I would have heard was a clichéd lament about young Catholics trying to turn the clock back to the 1950s.

 

[…]

You can read the rest there, but that is the part which I found to be of most interest.

Yesterday at the Summorum Pontificum conference here in Rome, Card. Sarah suggested that we not use words like “traditionalists” any longer.  In fact, they are simply “Catholics”.

The moderation queue is ON.

 

Posted in Our Catholic Identity, The Drill | Tagged
11 Comments

Thank you, Pope Benedict

Your Holiness, thank you for Summorum Pontificum.

Since the late 80’s I had the pleasure of speaking with you about these matters, and I think I know your mind on them and motives.

You gave us a great and timely gift.

Today, on this 10th anniversary of the implementation of your Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum, I offered my Holy Mass for your intention.

I will try to carry forward your vision and hopes.

Ad multos annos.

Posted in Benedict XVI, SUMMORUM PONTIFICUM | Tagged
14 Comments