I'll let other, more intelligent and better-spoken critics take care of this one (I strongly recommend reading Bill Easterly's response, posted here on his newish blog). In the meantime, with so many people paying attention to that juicy quote on birth control, the following comment has, for the most part, slipped right by:
The liturgy occupies an important place in the expression of your communities’ faith. In general, these ecclesial celebrations are festive and joyful, manifesting the fervour of the faithful who are happy to be together, in Church, giving praise to the Lord. It is therefore essential that the joy expressed in this way does not obstruct, but rather facilitates dialogue and communion with God, attained through a genuine internalization of the structures and words of the liturgy, so that these express what is taking place in the hearts of believers, in true union with all the other participants. The dignity of the celebrations, especially when they take place in the presence of large crowds, is an eloquent sign of this.A little long-winded, huh? Not so very "sound-byte-y," either. It's no wonder this one slipped past most of us; I myself didn't notice until my dad pointed it out to me in an email.
Any American Catholic who's attended mass in Africa (particularly a village mass, not one held at a cathedral) should get where the Pope is headed with this comment. The Catholic Mass in places like Malawi absolutely blows the American Catholic Mass out of the water. Mass is a fusion of the traditional Catholic liturgy - prayers, blessings, readings, the homily, more prayers and blessings, the Eucharist - and local cultural tradition, manifesting itself, usually, in the form of traditional music styles and dance. The result is a masterpiece, intricately woven of both threads, seamlessly enough that the outside observer can easily follow the Catholic quality of the liturgy, even if they've only been in the country for two days and know nothing of the language or culture. At the same time, the entire community is involved in the "production" of the mass celebration (in Malawi, everyone sings, and loudly - even if they're tone-deaf...the children dance between the pews, the older kids guiding the younger kids, the mothers guiding them all...community leaders go around taking up the collection for their individual communities). The masses that I attend each week are wholly Catholic, and yet uniquely Malawian. It's a beautiful thing - emphasizing the global aspect of faith, while embracing local customs and cultures, really sells the idea of universal brotherhood. This is something that religion is supposed to do, if we're to believe the warm words usually offered by leaders of the world's religions, and yet, we rarely see it in action.
Now, bearing all that in mind, what the Pope seems to be saying here is this:
"Knock that shit off, Africans!"
Now, of course, he cushions it a bit, saying some nice things about the joyfulness and "dignity" of the celebrations, but these kind words are rendered moot when he suggests that the exuberance of the celebrations may actually "obstruct" true communion with God. I am at a complete loss to understand this, first of all, because I don't see how joyous celebration is an obstacle to divine love or communion with God, and secondly, because I don't see how precision in carrying out rubrical directions of the liturgy actually facilitates communion with God - or at least, I don't see how this strict adherence to liturgy is an improvement over allowing cultural reimagination.
I was never all that religious, even as a kid, but I've attended mass regularly for most of my life. These days I'm closer to being Catholic in my heart, in some ways, than I've ever been...thanks in no part to this Pope, but due entirely to my experiences attending mass in Malawi. So this suggestion that an unconventional liturgy (by Rome's standards) prevents "genuine internalization of the structures and words of the liturgy" is bizarre and insulting.
If anything, I feel that the masses here greatly improve "genuine internalization" of the symbolic language of the liturgy, by shifting those symbols slightly to better fit the local culture. Look, the liturgy was formed in a specific environment, in a particular place, time, and culture. The liturgy that Pope Benedict is comfortable with, is the one whose symbolic language he feels most at home with. His preferred liturgy presents words and symbols structured in a way that facilitates understanding and "internalization" for his cultural background.
Is it really such a galloping shock that not every culture, that not every person in today's Catholic Church, views their faith through the very same symbolic lens as this 81-year-old Bavarian?
If this is shocking to you, I suggest you exit your enclosure, perhaps venture outside your front door for five minutes. We live in the 21st century. There are close to 7 billion people in the world, and the crushing majority of them have a different cultural background than you do - no matter who "you" are.
Posts
Hi John
ReplyDeleteMy take on the liturgy in Malawi is that it does "facilitate dialogue and communion with God," IN SPADES, and definitely brings about an "internalization of the structures and words of the liturgy." People are involved with their whole being!
Dad
Hello John,
ReplyDeleteThis is my first visit to your blog and I'm sorry that my introductory message will not be a more cordial one. The ravishing landscape with which you adorn the top of this page, and your lovely and eloquent appreciation of the Mass in Malawi, certainly made a positive first impression. If I shall have little that is nice to say about the rest of the above post I hope you will believe that it is not a personal attack. It is just that there are attitudes and assumptions and habits in it which I have viewed with growing irritation for some time, and perhaps if I explain what I mean I can contribute something to the conversation on these topics. If not then at least I shall have done no harm.
For one thing, the statement "The Catholic Mass in places like Malawi absolutely blows the American Catholic Mass out of the water" is just funny--considering how dangerously ill the Mass is here in America that's not setting the bar very high--it's like praising someone by saying "he's so much more moral and ethical than Charles Manson". But I suspect there's something deeper behind the statement; you imply that the Mass as celebrating in America (or Western Europe) is the standard to which the Pope would like the African Mass to conform. On the contrary, the endeavor to return that Mass to the appropriate dignity and vigour is what occupies a great deal of the Holy Father's attention. Secondly, the words you quote are not enough to get anything like a clear idea of the Pope's message. The salient line seems to be: "It is therefore essential that the joy expressed in this way does not obstruct, but rather facilitates dialogue and communion with God..." but there is nothing in this to indicate that his viewpoint is what you would describe it. For one thing, this sentence is in the indicative, not the subjunctive mood (the latter would sound more like "it is essential that the joy expressed in this way SHOULD NOT obstruct" or simply "that it NOT obstruct".) This could just be a way of saying "it is essential that we recognize that this joy is a good thing, that it in fact is not obstructing etc. etc."
On the other hand it is very possible that he is indeed offering a gentle criticism or warning--we all need to be warned of the potential dangers of the extreme to which we are drifting--the somnolent need to be woken up, the enthusiastic to be calmed, the courageous taught caution, the cautious taught courage, etc. But in this case two things need pointing out. First, there is a vast difference between the tone of the Pope's remark and your crude paraphrasing of it. If the Pope wanted to utter a strong condemnation or even a stern warning he would certainly know how to do so. So first of all, one wants to see a lot more of what he has to say on the subject before one can judge what his precise position is. Secondly, if he is uttering a criticism of something, we have to find out precisely what it is that he is criticising, and why. It may have nothing to do with the things which you so eloquently admire in the
Mass as celebrated in Malawi. Only when we know these two things--the exact position of the Pope, and the precise nature of the practices with reference to which he has taken that position--can we intelligently judge. Your post so far has not even begun to offer us either of those crucial things--and yet, on so insubstantial a basis, you are ready to fulminate?
Your four closing paragraphs are a great example of high dudgeon but I'm not sure I see what the point is. You say "So this suggestion that an unconventional liturgy (by Rome's standards) prevents "genuine internalization of the structures and words of the liturgy" is bizarre and insulting." Really? Doesn't it depend? I can think of a lot of unconventional elements that would not to anything to prevent genuine internalization etc. etc.--and I can think of a lot of unconventional elements that would prevent such internalization etc. Do you know which elements the Pope had in mind? If so why didn't you share the relevant details with us? And if not hadn't you better find out before you fulminate?
You say: "The liturgy that Pope Benedict is comfortable with, is the one whose symbolic language he feels most at home with. His preferred liturgy presents words and symbols structured in a way that facilitates understanding and "internalization" for his cultural background.
Is it really such a galloping shock that not every culture, that not every person in today's Catholic Church, views their faith through the very same symbolic lens as this 81-year-old Bavarian?"
Your suggestion here is that the Pope wants the Mass everywhere to be exactly the same, down to the smallest cultural detail, as it is in his milieu. Again, do you have any grounds at all for this assumption?
There is a rich and difficult and fascinating conversation worth having about culture and the Mass. What is essential? What in a universal church must be the same everywhere? When the Mass varies from one culture to another, which variations are healthy and in harmony with the essense of the Mass, and which are not? And how do we know the difference? This conversation, in order to avoid degenerating into pointless bromides and generalities, needs to stick largely to the level of specifics.
Instead of contributing something of use and interest to this discussion you have given us language like this:
"If this is shocking to you, I suggest you exit your enclosure, perhaps venture outside your front door for five minutes. We live in the 21st century. There are close to 7 billion people in the world, and the crushing majority of them have a different cultural background than you do - no matter who "you" are."
Every word in that paragraph is an insult. Language like this does not extend discussion, it makes discussion impossible. You loftily tell anyone who might disagree with you that you regard him as a caricature--someone who is shocked by a truism, someone who never ventures outside his front door of his "enclosure", who assumes that everyone in the world has or should have the "exact same" symbolic imagination, who needs you graciously to inform him what century we are living in and what the current population of the world is. Worse yet, what is the relevance of these facts? Would cultural and geographical differences not be worth discussing if we lived in another century or if the world's population were smaller? All of this would be insulting and bad-natured enough if it were based on reality, if for example you were angry about something substantial. As it is, when it is based on next to nothing, it is simply meaningless.
So my advice is, first base your rhetoric on something rather than nothing. Find out what specific practices the Pope has in mind and what his precise position on them is. Then, if you disagree, have the basic manners to think through his point of view a little bit. You leap to assume everyone who differs from you is an imbecile. Maybe his position is based on known realities to which you've never given a moment's thought, of whose existence, perhaps, you are not even aware? And then, when you've reached that level of understanding, express your protest in language which one intelligent, honest, adult uses in addressing other intelligent, honest adults who he assumes are arguing in good faith. That's conversation--this by contrast is sound and fury.
Hello there-found this via andrew sullivan's blog on The Atlantic website.
ReplyDeleteWhat Christopher above seems to have missed is that he Pope's missive is not a discussion of difference of celebration of mass liturgy and cultural differences at all. The missive clearly states this Pope does not feel that the mas as celebrated, is proper. End of story, and no need for an obsfucating 10 paragraphs of apologia.
Having said that, though, it's interesting how the last Pope encouraged cultral diversity while maintaining core Catholic teachings and at least had an understanding of a reality of why people were getting infected with HIV/AIDS. This Pope is still very much the professor, I think- more wrapped up theory than engaged in in the world.
This is my first visit to this blog too, which I also found it via Andrew Sullivan. Sullivan, by the way, is one of the many exemplars of a dilemma, which I've faced for 40 years now.
ReplyDeleteI'm “of the left” (always voted Democratic, campaigned full-time for Obama etc.), but I also am, or at least try to be, a faithful Catholic. So, I'm torn on one side by people, who say I'm in danger of Hell because I support candidates, who are “pro-abortion” (and never mind that I do so for reasons which I deem to be “proportional” in line with Church "instructions" on this issue; e.g., opposition to Bush's unjust Iraq War, the general Republican attack on the poor, on unions and the utter wreck they have made of the economy etc.; or that I struggle to try to win other Democrats over to my “pro-life/consistent life” point of view, --and almost always get bashed mightily for it etc.). And on the other hand, I'm ripped by the likes of Andrew Sullivan.
So I like most of what Sullivan says about politics, but not what he says about religion, certainly not what he says about Catholicism. And I agree, by the way, that condom-use tends to spread AIDS, so, I guess my remarks are “idiotic” too. Nor do I appreciate such language used, in relation to our holy Pope, much less a certain word, which I will not even repeat, by John Duffell.
And I think that the real issue, is the thinking, which underlies Sullivan's gripes, and probably those of Duffell. For that same 40 years, “liberal Catholics” have been chanting the same mantra. They seem to think that, if they do so long enough, they will “win”, that the Church will reverse its opposition to contraceptives.
And their fury over that issue has caused them to widen their field of attack to include dozens of issues, which come under the heading of what is sometimes called, “the liberalagenda” (e.g., female “ordinations”) But they never will “win”. These involve matters of infallible teaching, which, if understood correctly, are totally logical and just too.
And infallible teaching never changes. So, GET USED TO IT Mr Sullivan! (And ditto to Mr Duffell, if it applies.)
And we are tipped off that Duffell's position is at least very like that of Sullivan by one word (in italics) “no”: “These days I'm closer to being Catholic in my heart, in some ways, than I've ever been...thanks in no part to this Pope, but due entirely to my experiences attending mass in Malawi.”
So, Mr Duffell doesn't like Pope Benedict. Why? The usual “liberal” reasons? Bet on it!
And, since he doesn't like our good Pope, he's suspicious of everything he says, and so, over-states what the Pope is really saying (as those of us,who have followed this man for many years, both before and after GOD chose to make him Pope, know, I've long called it, “Ratzinger speak”). What Benedict is really asking for, is not abandonment of African-style masses in favor of European-style ones, he's only asking for a bit of “fine tuning”.
And might this not be apt? The very fact that Mr Duffell likes these African masses so much, gives us a clue.
If you like singing and dancing, so much, Mr Duffell, why not try a rock concert? The Mass is really about one thing and one thing only: God becomes truly present for us in the Sacrament of the Altar. And, to the extent that too much singing and dancing may obscure this reality, it should be modified (which is really all our good Pope was REALLY saying).
But the Reality of the Real Presence also becomes obscured, when we are not favorably disposed, and we cannot really be fully favorably disposed, if we do not hold the Catholic Faith whole and entire, and that includes such hard bits as the matter of contraception.
Become really favorably disposed Mr Duffel, and you will love even those (admittedly) “dull” American/European masses. But then Andrew Sullivan probably won't direct to your blog.
What scientific evidence shows that "condoms-use tends to spread AIDS"? Was this lifted from a brochure on abstinence only ed?
ReplyDeleteSounds spurious to me, even with the qualifier "tends." Betting that the audience doesn't know a correlation from a causation? The Jesuits must be rolling their eyes.
Concerning this from David's post above "And I agree, by the way, that condom-use tends to spread AIDS, so, I guess my remarks are “idiotic” too." No, there is no guessing about it; your remarks are idiotic. Again, here we've got another Catholic arguing against science, what can be proven. It's like a selective blindness. Let me tell you this: If I'd used condoms - always used condoms - I wouldn't have AIDS. I'm not unique in how I was infected; it's the way most Africans (and people in general) are infected: unprotected sex. I just thank God that my family and I are not Catholic with 'leaders' like this.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous, would you tell me please, what compels you to have sex at all in such a medically hostile environment, outside of an enclave of marriage (fidelity goes without saying)?
ReplyDeleteMar,
ReplyDeleteFirst, as to the 'fidelity goes without saying' part...morals are man-made. I'm not including things like stealing, hurting / killing others, doing things to children, etc... that those are 'immoral' goes without saying. To put YOUR definition of what's immoral or unfaithful into my relationship is about like me dictating how you cook your food. It's none of your business. If I intentionally show you my hand of cards, are you cheating? It'd be hard to say you were if you and I were the only ones playing. Getting past that, what compels me to have sex? I don't know how to answer that. Why do we have air conditioning, eat food that tastes good, listen to music that is to our liking, where clothes that look nice together, go on vacations to places we like? Because we like it, maybe? Perhaps it's because it's enjoyable? Because we want to?
There are risks in 'most everything we do. Whether it's eating food that we haven't grown and prepared, driving or riding in a vehicle on a public road, or buying something that was a waste of money or that hurts us. Sometimes, we make a poor choice that has unfortunate consequences. I made a poor choice for whatever reason. I live with the consequences every day. To not promote condoms as a way to help prevent HIV is wrong. It has been proven to be wrong. It can also be proven that people are going to do things that are risky, such as having unsafe sex. Otherwise, we wouldn't even be having this 'conversation'. Using a condom is like wearing a seatbelt to help keep us safe while on the road. Not wearing a seatbelt, even just once, can have terrible consequences, too.
So a discussion of the liturgy of the Mass gets hijacked by a discussion of condoms and sex. Why am I not surprised?
ReplyDeleteSays Christopher..."So a discussion of the liturgy of the Mass gets hijacked by a discussion of condoms and sex. Why am I not surprised?"
ReplyDeleteWhy am I not surprised by that 'distraction'? Both sentences in the first paragraph of the blog mention condoms and birth control (and HIV/AIDS). It's not hijacked when an initial point mentioned is the one being discussed. I think the Pope's comments on condom use as a way to help prevent HIV/AIDS shows how out of touch he really is.
Most of the folks writing here seem to make the assumption that Ratzinger’s way of being Pope is a success and that it should not be questioned. Actually it is a disaster, because the man has no idea of how to be a PASTOR—of how to garner public sympathy and support or of how to behave as if he’s actually LISTENING to the pulse of the “People of God.” Instead of that, you assume that it’s his people’s responsibility to listen to and to try to understand his convoluted, arcane theological reasoning. You seem not to understand that his style of governance of the Church stands in severe contradiction even of that of his predecessor, and makes the thorough-going rejection of Vatican II’s emphasis on collegiality during these last two pontificates much clearer. I’ll let the editors of The Tablet speak to you of how much this is roiling his brother bishops:
ReplyDeleteThe Pope's entourage has a maxim: "Do not disturb the driver." But this is not the way to guide a community of 1.2 billion faithful. Pope Benedict's letter [suggesting “unfairness” in the press’s account of the lifting of the Lefebvrevists’ excommunication] expresses a great personal sincerity but also betrays a weakness. To speak of hostility directed against the Pope especially from within Catholic circles raises some serious questions. It suggests that either the Pope considers every criticism to be a personal attack - and this should not be the reaction of a leader who needs to understand the complexity involved in the process of government - or that there exist in the Church many people who are uneasy with the direction being taken by the Pope.
This is the first real crisis of the Pope's leadership. In past years the crises were always outside the Church: relations with Islam, the relationship with the Jewish community impatient over moves to beatify Pius XII. But this time the crisis exploded "inside" the Church and the fact that emerges clearly is that the bishops have denounced an absence of collegiality in the government of Pope Benedict.
The Pope was fully aware that a majority of the members of the College of Cardinals which he convened in Rome in March 2006 were of the view that the followers of the SSPX could only return to the bosom of the Church if they expressed a "faithful adherence to Vatican II", but he chose not to take account of this. In taking the decision to remit the excommunications he consulted neither heads of dicasteries of the Curia nor the bishops with a particular interest. He did not consider it important or necessary.
When I interviewed him in November 2004, just a few months before the conclave in which he was elected Pope, the then Cardinal Ratzinger said: "It is increasingly apparent that a worldwide Church, particularly in this present situation, cannot be governed by an absolute monarch ... in time a means will be found to create realistically a profound collaboration between the bishops and the Pope, because only in this way will we be able to respond to the challenges of this world."
Benedict XVI has done nothing to realise this principle. The affair concerning the Lefebvrists - like the unilateral decision in 2007 to re-establish in permanent form the pre-conciliar Mass - has brought to light the heart of the crisis: the failure to implement collegiality. Pope John Paul II also preferred an exercise of power that was strongly personal but behind his charisma he kept a close ear on world public opinion, had a profound sense of history and the ability to perform gestures that threw open new perspectives to the Catholic Church and to the whole of Christianity. There was for instance his act of penitence for the errors and the horrors committed by the Church down the centuries, the joint prayer with leaders of other world religions, the celebration of the unique ties between the Abrahamic faiths - Judaism, Christianity, Islam - and the final proposal of a consultation with the heads of the Christian Churches to review together the exercise of papal primacy.
Today, without these leaps forward, what remains is the naked problem of an exercise of power that is authoritarian and solitary before which the bishops around the world are increasing their demands for collegiality. The affair concerning the nomination of Fr Gerhard Maria Wagner as auxiliary Bishop of Linz becomes emblematic of this. It had never happened that a national bishops' conference opposed a papal nomination and obliged the Pope to revoke the decision. Yet this happened in Austria. And it is a sign of an underlying tension that could easily ignite. Similarly, it had never happened that an archbishop proclaimed an excommunication, later validated by the Vatican, and bishops from another country protested against the decision to the point where the Vatican newspaper, L'Osservatore Romano, had to criticise the excommunication. This happened with the excommunication pronounced in Brazil by Archbishop José Cardoso Sobrinho on the mother of a nine-year-old girl who allowed her daughter to have an abortion after she was raped and became pregnant. The violent reaction of a number of bishops in France against the excommunication created a difficulty for the Vatican.
Truly, beneath the surface of Roman power - as under a volcano - one can hear ominous rumblings.
http://www.thetablet.co.uk/article/12833
Another thing that the papal supremacists writing here seem oblivious to is the actual nature of “papal infallibility.” It applies only to matters of “faith and morals”—to DOGMAS, in other words, such as whether abortion is “moral,” whether the “Second Person of the Trinity” is God—and also, interestingly enough, for the Wiegels and Novaks of the world—whether “pre-emptive wars” are consonant with “just war teachings.” However, it has NOTHING to do with such things as the exclusion of married men or women from the “sacerdotal office,” when it can be proved, from a historical perspective, that many of these things were actual INNOVATIONS upon the practice of the Apostles.
What I’m saying, then, is that, of late, certain papal actions, such as the determination to raise certain figures to the altars of the universal Church, i.e. “canonize” them, and certain papal pronouncements, such as John Paul II’s statement that he could not “conceive” of how some future successor of his could expand the sacerdotal office to include women, actually verge on HERESY, because they represent an extension of the doctrine of “papal infallibility” considerably beyond what the participants in the First Vatican Council intended. I think that these recent pretensions to “papal infallibility” make of the modern Roman Catholic Church something that would have disturbed John Henry Newman, who said that the spectacle of an octogenarian pope, ruling absolutely, was abhorrent.
Wow. What a spread of comments here...okay, I'd like to respond to a few of your thoughts. First of all, to you, David Irby:
ReplyDeleteWhat is the natural extension, the logical end of your argument that "if we do not hold the Catholic faith whole and entire," including "such hard bits as the matter of contraception," we "cannot really be fully favorably disposed"? What do you mean by holding the Catholic faith whole and entire? If I'm to take this word for word, then should I take the Catholic faith to be "whole and entire" throughout the course of human history, not merely in the years of my own short life?
Should I be favorably disposed to all the unseemly elements of church history? I won't provoke the die-hards by giving the historical examples that we all know full well (this argument has been rehashed thousands, if not millions of times, on other blogs). Suffice it to say, I am not going to become favorably disposed to everything the church might say or do just because you point your finger at me and say it ought to be so. The church has been, and continues to be, a force through history - human history. I would not shy away from holding individuals or governments to my ethical standards; I will write letters, I will speak up, I will make plenty of noise. I'll do my part to stand up for what I strongly believe, just as you would likely do for your own beliefs. I see nothing wrong in including the Church in my criticisms. The Church has not always been on the "right" side of history (not just my opinion - the Vatican has made its share of apologies for its role in history). There's no reason for me to believe, therefore, that the Church is necessarily "right" today, or that it will always continue to be so. Should I seek happiness and true understanding of the "Reality of Real Presence" by refusing to become even slightly unfavorably disposed to anything the Church says or does? Sitting in the pews, a smile half-frozen on my face, blocking out my conscience in favor of a belief that I can't be truly Catholic unless I accept as law everything that is declared true by the Church (which, let us not forget, is made up of human beings)?
My answer to this question, as you so snarkily pointed out, is an italicized NO. (Not that there's anything wrong with snark, mind you - see my entire post, above).
As for Christopher: Please stop me if I'm wrong, but as I read your comment, the recurring theme seems to be that since the Pope was vague, I shouldn't read between the lines to try and extrapolate deeper meaning from his comments (seriously, how dare I?), and therefore, the simple truth must be that the Pope was only being vague because he has no specific point to make. He was just making a general comment, with no teeth in it, no real point except to say, "hey, just in case the joyous mass celebrations you put on happen to obstruct true dialogue with God, then maybe, in that hypothetical case, you should think about it, and come to your own conclusions."
You employed some neat grammatical tricks in there with the indicative/subjunctive mood. So here's another neat grammatical trick, of a mere eight letters: Bullshit. You think that vague language must imply only vague intentions? That is an incredibly flimsy premise. I believe (and I suspect you might agree with me on this one point) that Pope Benedict XVI is not one to make toothless statements. I believe that if he went to the trouble of talking about African-style mass celebrations obstructing true communion with God, he actually meant it.
(Question: How often have you invited a friend into your home, and heard him remark casually, "Hey, I'm not saying your smoke detector batteries have run down, but you know, on the off-chance that somewhere, someone's smoke detector contained dead batteries, well, that just might be dangerous!" The answer is never. Nobody has ever said that to you. If this ever did happen, I doubt that you would assume that your friend was just being "vague." You'd probably take it as a suggestion that you should check your batteries.)
So you're right - he was vague in those public statements. This is supposition (so I'm prepared for another ten paragraphs exposing my rhetoric), but I'm willing to bet that he wasn't so vague in his discussions with the bishops of Cameroon. I'm willing to bet he isn't so vague in his discussions with the College of Cardinals. Obviously I’m not party to those discussions, but I do know that even during the public remarks, in the midst of his vagueness, he took care to call out the exuberance of the African mass and make a remark about how joy or exuberance is a potential obstruction of communion with God. These remarks do not occur in a vacuum. People are meant to hear them, people are meant to derive meaning from them, and people are meant to act on them. Here’s a question for you: Do you think the Pope’s public statements are without meaning, without consequence?
Now then, when I say that the world contains a plethora of different cultures, and therefore different symbolic languages, and that the Pope's "symbolic lens" doesn’t match everyone else's, I happen to think I'm making a pretty good (albeit obvious) point. You, however, seem to think that this means I'm suggesting that "the Pope wants the Mass everywhere to be exactly the same, down to the smallest cultural detail, as it is in his milieu." You then ask if I have "any grounds at all" for this assumption. Well, I don't. You know why? Because I never said that. Furthermore, I don't believe it. Obviously, the mass is different from place to place, even where the cultures don't differ as much (i.e., the United States and the United Kingdom). I don't think the Pope has a problem with this. I do, however, think that the Pope has a problem with the joy expressed in the African mass. I even think he believes that this joy is an obstruction to proper internalization of the structures of the mass. You know why I think that? Because that's what the Pope said – due respect to your English 101 lesson.
Finally, you are absolutely right that my tone is passionate, even that I am "fulminating." What can I say? I have a deep love and respect of this ability my friends in Malawi have, of expressing their joy so completely during the mass. I'm personally very frustrated by the Pope's apparent deafness to this. I'd go so far as to say I'm pissed off. Note that this is not an apology.
I close now with another thought of yours, and one of my own:
There is a rich and difficult and fascinating conversation worth having about culture and the Mass...Instead of contributing something of use and interest to this discussion you have given us language like this:
"If this is shocking to you, I suggest you exit your enclosure, perhaps venture outside your front door for five minutes..."
Right. Because it's not as though I said anything constructive in my original post about the harmony of culture and Catholicism. It's not as though I made any points "of interest to this discussion." Oh, wait:
Mass is a fusion of the traditional Catholic liturgy - prayers, blessings, readings, the homily, more prayers and blessings, the Eucharist - and local cultural tradition, manifesting itself, usually, in the form of traditional music styles and dance. The result is a masterpiece, intricately woven of both threads, seamlessly enough that the outside observer can easily follow the Catholic quality of the liturgy, even if they've only been in the country for two days and know nothing of the language or culture. At the same time, the entire community is involved in the "production" of the mass celebration (in Malawi, everyone sings, and loudly - even if they're tone-deaf...the children dance between the pews, the older kids guiding the younger kids, the mothers guiding them all...community leaders go around taking up the collection for their individual communities). The masses that I attend each week are wholly Catholic, and yet uniquely Malawian. It's a beautiful thing - emphasizing the global aspect of faith, while embracing local customs and cultures, really sells the idea of universal brotherhood.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you John.
ReplyDeleteServices in Malawi, with all their loud and maybe distracting jubilee, re-ignited my faith as well. And it is ok to make be critical of what the Pope says without a full idea of every policy or doctrine he has in mind. It is in criticism and discussion and analysis that we grow.
All the best, MaryAlice
Nice conversation, guy. I like your writing.
ReplyDeleteBut I'm hurt that nobody challenged me on whether the liturgy DOES "facilitate dialogue and communion with God, IN SPADES," or my belief that it definitely DOES bring about an
"internalization of the structures and words of the liturgy." Phooey!