Liberal, Progressive, or simply Loopy
May 7, 2008, 1:42 pm
Posted by Robert P. Imbelli
There is some discussion on a post below about “liberal” or “progressive” Catholics. Dot-Commers, as one would expect, are of different views, and there seems little common ground even as to the meaning of the labels.
Meanwhile a video is making its way around Boston College, providing frazzled students with momentary surcease from end-of-semester labors.
Indeed, it seems to be creating common ground among a variety of student types: wonderment at the way some grandparents carry on.
You may care to check it out.
Ouch! Oh! Help! and again, Ouch! Robert, I would have been grateful for just a little bit more warning about how disturbing the video would be. And here I am, defenseless because my bottle of Lagavulin is empty.
Wherever did you find that video?
Loopy.
Bob, I think you’re being kind of mean here. These are Catholic engaged in worship–maybe not your style, but worship nonetheless. How would you feel if someone put up a tape of a Latin mass, complete with fiddlebacks, and invited people to mock it? I’m not sure that we’ve ever invited mockery of people’s worship style, liberal or conservative, on dotCommonweal ever before. I realize there’s a mockfest going on Amy Welborn’s site, but I expect that from her –not from you.
In addition, are even you sure this is a video filmed and distributed with permission of the people who are in it?
Joseph,
I think the bottle metaphor is apt. Only a residue of the fragrance remains.
The Tridentine rite was in place for hundreds of years, and is a recognized form of liturgy. Dressing up in giant caricatured costumes of black people with wooden paddles for hands is more akin to a blackface minstrel show than to “worship.”
OK, maybe that’s a bit harsh, but for the life of me I can’t imagine what these people were trying to accomplish here.
In addition, are even you sure this is a video filmed and distributed with permission of the people who are in it?
Given that it’s posted on a “Call to Action” website — as can be seen from clicking on the link Fr. Imbelli provided — I’m guessing the answer is Yes.
Oh dear, this is horrendous. My first reaction is indeed the average age in the group– which seems quite elevated! And then I thought: are these the Catholics who are supporting Hillary Clinton? For it really seems to be a generational issue. At my Church, the division between people who like solemn and (ahem!) less solemn liturgies can be predicted more by age than by political or ideological leanings. It really is an age gap.
Did you check out the average age of the members of the congregation? It looks as though we won’t have this kind of liturgy around for very long.
Cathy,
I’ll ignore the ad hominem and merely opine that you seem not to opt for the third of my title’s categories.
A perceptive book review appeared in Commonweal way back in January 1992 (yes, my gray hair would put me squarely in the grandparents class). It’s by Luke Timothy Johnson and is prescient. It deserves re-reading.
Johnson writes, by way of conclusion: “These authors’ apparent unawareness of or unconcern for the fragility of all tradition, and their willingness to jettison huge chunks of it without suggesting anything remotely equivalent in its place, suggests that their stated allegiance to Christianity is largely sentimental and unfortunately provides further solid evidence why liberalism is not trusted by those who could benefit from it.”
Qui potest capere …..
Thanks for Cathleen Caveny who showed integrity while every other poster should have known better. I will have more later. But for now, let Cathy’s words speak for themselves.
I would say disturbing. Loopy doesn’t quite capture the essence of this video.
It would never pass muster for progressive, liberal, or even loopy liturgists. I quit watching after one minute. The song was too darn slow. ‘Course it would have been interesting to see puppets dance at breakneck speed.
The video was gotten from http://www.ctanorcal.org/2008Liturgy.html
There was a tremendous lesson here today. Perhaps more words will diminish the impact. There was a time when pastors would celebrate Eucharist without a Missal and there was no need to be so precise. The People knew it was the Lord’s Supper, the celebration of his death and resurrection. We are a diverse church.
In the fourth century Augustine told the Donatists that it was alright to persecute pagans and heretics because Christianity now reigned, the time of the Apostles was over and the time of the reign of Christians was present. “Tempora Christiana.” In the times of the Apostles the wedding guests were invited. Now when Christians have the power of state, it is okay to “force them to come in.”
Unfortunately, that “tradition” is too prevalent among us where the “Spirit” now comes from monarchs and the church of the apostles is but a memory.
We see how others are seen but not how we are seen.
http://www.trytel.com/~jfalt/colours/4sections.html
There was indeed a good deal about the behavior prescribed by the Tridentine rubrics that can best be described as bizarre, except that we were not attuned to notice it because it seemed to be natural. Such is the force of custom with those who know nothing else. And among the bits of Latin one hears now still there are those who pronounce “deo” as “dayow” and “laetare” as “laytaray” and so forth. Perhaps it is all relative. I hope no one is monitoring. I swear I am not a relativist. Really! I have never said “Sancte Protagora ora pro nobis”.
Were the puppets supposed to specifically represent anyone?
Now, if you’re going to do liturgical dance, at least do it with a smile!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fz2aE6DvHDc
Yeah, that has been posted here before, but it’s just the best darn stuff.
Bill and Cathy: After having given some quiet reflection to your concerns, my foremost conclusion was that I was glad you pushed back, even if, at the end of the day, I did not agree with you (nor, on some issues even understood what was being claimed(. I am sure dotCom has had countless liturgy discussions, so I apologize if I commit the great sin of going over “raked ground” (being philosophically inclined, I have no problem with going over raked ground as I am often not quite sure why I concluded last week that such and so was obviously true), yet I do not think it inappropriate to indicate when you think something very important has gone very awry.
If the video was of a youth led liturgy, not sure they have such things in Catholic churches (recall I am a defected Catholic and a defective Christian), I would be far more inclined to appreicate it, much as one appreciates the musical efforts of 7th grade orchestras (moreover, on religious matters, youth can strike notes that escape most 7th grade musicians). But this was a culminating liturgy of a gathering of a movement that seeks to cultivate new leadership in the church. Instead, I saw only confusion in concept and theology, along with a real over emphasis on performance that rubbed my post-Vatican II home church service sensabilities the wrong way (I have clear memories of going to these in my very young years).
I actually do not have the same aesthetic and tradition based concerns that someone like Robert or others might bring to this matter. I have genuine “issues” with some of the deliverances of tradition, and I fall very much on the community centered function of worship, rather than the transcendence centered function of worship that some others promote on dotComm. But my objection to much “progressive” liturgy that one might expect to be appealing to me is that the entire purpose of a community approach to worship is, as I see it, to affirm and experience the unity of all those gathered in their covenant with God. Christians are united to each other in the Cross and Resurrection, and to the whole world in the love of God, found for Christians in Jesus. Jesus died for what we have in common, not for what makes us different.
What I find so often, and certainly not just in this video, but also in much of what I experience in many liberal Protestant churches, is an extreme emphasis on difference, and the value of difference, not on unity. This video, at least as far as the puppets are concerned, seems to shout out “difference!” not unity. (How can our lives, like the puppets, be larger than life? That which is larger than life is, by definition, either unreal or misrepresented).
Perhaps, at the end of the day, my initial mockery was the kind of thing better expressed among friends while having a drink, rather than on a public blog. My failure to notice this, however, speaks to the comfort level I have dwelling among you dotCommers.
I’ll admit to not feeling entirely comfortable with what I was watching, and at first the giant puppet figures were jarring. It appeared the people in attendance were multi-racial and perhaps multi-ethnic, and that some of the music seemed to have an Afro-Caribbean flavor. Then I recalled that similar giant puppets are a frequent occurrence in some Caribbean carnivale celebrations, and I thought that may have been the origin of the puppets in the video, though it doesn’t completely expalin why they would be incorporated into the liturgy.
I was most interested in observing the actions and words of the celebrant. I wasn’t sure if that was wine in the vessels. It may well have been, but it didn’t look like wine to me. To my ear, however, the words spoken at the Consecration did not deviate from what we hear at Sunday Mass, and only once did I hear something out of the ordinary from the celebrant, and that was when he imparted the blessing at the end of the service “in the name of the Creator, and of the Redeemer, and of the Sanctifier.” As we know, the CDF has banned baptisms using such wording, but I don’t know if it has been banned from Mass.
Having lived overseas for extended periods, I’ve seen a number of Masses where cultural and local elements are incorporated into the liturgy, and the result is usually wonderful and memorable, but, and this is just my personal taste, I found the constant movement of the dancers in the video distracting, and I was unclear about why one of the dancers would also be handling the censor.
The opening hymn is often used at Mass at events devoted to change. It’s called Sing a New Church into Being and was written by Sr. Delores Dufner, OSB, who has written some fine scripture-based hymns as well. It is a wonderful thing, actually, when a hymnwriter’s work betrays deep and faithful contact with the Word of God. Sr. Dufner, with whom I once sat on a hymnwriting panel, has written about how the practice of lectio divina informs her writing.
In this hymn, however, betrays almost nothing of this degree of spiritual depth. It is a celebration of diversity and equality, and the expression of the most radical form of the hermeneutic of discontinuity that I have ever heard. It is one thing to say that we want justice, change, or reform; it is quite another to say that we want to start completely over! Or that we could!
The tune, NETTLETON, is also commonly used for Christopher Idle’s excellent, very useful versification of the Te Deum, God We Praise You. It’s quite a fun tune to sing, and I would like to think that this accounts for much of Sing a New Church’s success. A few years ago I went to Sunday Mass at my old parish, where I had been a cantor and worked closely with the organist on hymn selection. The closing hymn, all the verses, loudly sung, was Sing a New Church.
The people will sing most anything if they like the tune. You could set blatant heresy to Joyful Joyful and everyone would sing. So this ong gets a big boost from NETTLETON, I think, but an arguably much bigger boost from its selection as Song of the Year in (I believe the year is right, Todd can correct me if I’m wrong) 1993 by NPM, the major US professional organization of Catholic pastoral music leadership.
I do not know what concerns me more, the video or some of the comments I have read here and on other blogs, where admittedly the majority of them are far less civil. One thing, I think is clear. Despite all of the postings in the past week about the meaning of Benedict’s visit to the US, all of which I believe were sincere, his call to overcoming division in the Church has fallen on deaf ears. It looks to me like it is back to business as usual. In the interest of full disclosure, I have to admit that I had wondered how long it would take for the fervor to wear off.
It appeared the people in attendance were multi-racial and perhaps multi-ethnic, and that some of the music seemed to have an Afro-Caribbean flavor. Then I recalled that similar giant puppets are a frequent occurrence in some Caribbean carnivale celebrations, and I thought that may have been the origin of the puppets in the video,
Interesting theory, but after watching as much of the video I could tolerate, I saw exclusively elderly white people (with the lone exception being the black guy trying to dance). Were the multi-racial people seated in a separate room, perhaps?
Kathy: Why did “Come Thou Fount of Every Blessing” not make your short list of Nettleton hymns?
I think there is something important in Stuart’s response to William Collier. There was great diversity in the liturgy, but not in the congregation. According to the website provided by Bill Mazzella , scripture was read in English, Spanish, Vietnamese and Tagalog. Is it conceiveable that this was done with no one other than the reader present who spoke these languages? What would it mean liturgically speaking if this were the case? Is diversity without an experiential foundation of unity only dissonance rather than harmony and unity?
Whenever I am asked to sing the hymn Siyahamba in its original language, I am at a loss. I simply cannot do it. It is indeed a beautiful hymn in its original, and I do not mind singing the English translation (We are Walking). But I feel disconnected from the service immediately when it is time to try to sing it in its original form. I never quite understand the point.
As for the hymn in question, it may well have been an NPM theme for one of its conventions in ’93. I don’t recall if the text was commissioned for that purpose. It certainly rouses as much passion as the puppets in some corners.
My Iowa parish used it in connection with a church renovation. I don’t think it deserves the criticism it receives in some quarters. Dufner has written better texts, but this one is usually tackled by people who are unaccustomed to metaphor and prefer their reading material literal and well-defined. If there’s a hermeneutic operating with it, I’d say it’s more likely the Hermenteutic of Complaint coming from its detractors.
This video is a distraction and does not respect the Transubstantiation of Christ. The celebration of the Mass is the way we are able to participate fully in Christ’s Gift of His Passion, the Union of God’s Great Love and His Great Mercy, so that we may have the Hope of Eternal Salvation.
Alan Mitchell,
I had occasion in another exchange to mention that I appreciated the concern you articulated. And I do so here as well.
However, you also speak of a “concern” about the liturgy-video. Part of my intent was to suggest that there are people associated with this blog who are concerned about liturgical transgression, and that this is not merely a concern of blogs that some tend to dismiss as “conservative” or worse.
The purpose of my quote of Johnson (in the comment above) is to offer an example of forthright and courageous discernment. Absent such, it is no wonder that “liberalism is not trusted by those who could benefit from it.”
A small effort, if you will, toward a common “sentire cum ecclesia.”
Todd,
I always expect serious discourse from you, and you always disappoint me.
Joe,
Just an oversight! Come Thou Fount is not in common usage in most Roman Catholic settings. Nice, though:
Come, Thou Fount of every blessing,
Tune my heart to sing Thy grace;
Streams of mercy, never ceasing,
Call for songs of loudest praise.
Teach me some melodious sonnet,
Sung by flaming tongues above.
Praise the mount! I’m fixed upon it,
Mount of Thy redeeming love.
I would say three things about the multicultural music:
1) There was an ongoing effort in the 90′s and 00′s, led by C Michael Hawn and others, to include the hymns of other languages, cultures and countries in the common usage of American congregations. In other words this was not a strictly organic or market-driven development but a movement with scholarly and institutional drive.
2) Songs in other languages must be simple and repetitive. There is no possibility of sustaining a theological train of thought. Every one of us knows a lot of things. We have had to learn and adjust to online banking and cell phones. We can learn fast, but we’re not expected to learn doctrine. That, in my opinion, is already an impoverishment, but rather more important is the impossibility of sustaining interest. What is left in the Church if we engage in false enthusiasm during worship? Who knows if it is going on in the video–for all I know they may be fully engaged and sincere in the hand motions. But if they’re not, they’re faking worship. Not a good idea on any point of the ideological spectrum.
3) The reification of diversity and its idealization have led, somehow, to the manufacturing of giant scary puppets who have no culture, no country, no ethnicity. They are not human; they are humanoid. They stand for an idealized diversity stripped of the thing that gives cultures their dignity: the human being.
I’m not sure which concerns me more, the liturgy itself or the fact that CTA posted it on their website. That seems to show an amazing disconnect with the Catholic community they want to be attracting. (I could not find it on the website this morning — has the brouhaha caused them to take it down?)
My own negative personal response to the video, as well as some of the comments above, make me wonder about the standards we use to critique liturgy. How much room do and should we have for diversity? Is the problem the very concept of using these puppets and liturgical dance, or the way it appears to be implemented in this case? Maybe I’m asking about the connection between aesthetics and rubrics.
The experience of watching these excerpts on my computer screen is very different from participating in the liturgy. Let us assume arguendo that those attending this Mass experienced the music, puppets, and dance as enhancing their full and active participation in the Eucharist. Is that subjective experience relevant? Can puppets and Tridentine liturgies coexist in the same church?
I’ve been to some amazing multicultural liturgies that could appear odd if taken out of context. One of the possible differences between those liturgies and the CTA Mass might be that they drew upon cultural traditions that had a depth and meaning within their audience’s context. That doesn’t appear to be the case in the CTA video, although I’m open to correction if I’m wrong. So maybe the question in this case isn’t so much drawing upon existing traditions as trying to create new ones.
I tend to agree with Joe Pettit’s comparison above to a 7th grade liturgy. As seen on the video, the dance/puppets appeared to me more about performance than worship. Is that an aesthetic critique or a theological one?
Kathy, I beg your pardon. I thought this thread was about puppets.
If you’re interested in a serious discussion on hymnody, or any particular hymn, let’s find a serious thread or another medium to communicate it. You and others seem to be under the presumption that the case against “Sing A New Church” is a slamdunk. I have to say I’ve never seen a serious case made against it.
Your own statement, “The opening hymn is often used at Mass at events devoted to change. … It is a celebration of diversity and equality, and the expression of the most radical form of the hermeneutic of discontinuity that I have ever heard. It is one thing to say that we want justice, change, or reform; it is quite another to say that we want to start completely over! Or that we could!” strikes me as more dismissive than seriously analytical.
It’s always been my understanding that the Church’s sacramental theology, especially in Reconciliation, tells us it is indeed quite easy to start over. We just turn ourselves completely over to God.
You do realize that the hymn text refers to a new church, not a new Church, right? I don’t think many conservatives quite get past the title
I found Alan Mitchell’s coment here the most perceptive. If liturgy, as claimed, is where the rubber hits the road, I don’t think this video offers much in the way of “common ground.”
CTA’s 2007 theme had to do with race and many old white folks participated in that.
Whether this liturgy helped the theme of race unity along is another question.
But, despite protestations to the contrary, I perceive personal predilections pro and con as continuing the discussio on the liturgical divide and no tbeing overly helpful in bringing about common ground – including the age gap differential.
Bob, your post and subsequent comments seem to betray your own oft-cited views, and your regular remonstrations. I was impressed with this post of yours, just a few months ago:
http://www.commonwealmagazine.org/blog/?p=1575
At the very least, I think we could follow a basic rule that if you dish it out, you have to be able to take it.
Dave,
Since you seem constitutionally unable to forgo “dialogue” with me, I knew it was only a matter of time before I’d be hearing from you.
In yet another exchange on one of my recent Posts, “Suscipe, Sancta Trinitas”, you worried about a possible unauthorized mixture of the Extraordinary and Ordinary Forms of the Roman Rite.
I take it the Way-Out Form troubles you less.
Let us assume arguendo that those attending this Mass experienced the music, puppets, and dance as enhancing their full and active participation in the Eucharist.
The dance — Although I find liturgical dance a bit distracting, I can imagine that other people might find it somehow worshipful (although not these particular dancers, who possess rather un-ballet-like bodies).
The puppets — Here is where my imagination fails me. If someone claims to find those puppets a worshipful experience, I find this as impossible to believe as if someone were to claim that Barney the Dinosaur is an artistic expression equivalent to a Rembrandt, or that a Britney Spears tune was comparable to Bach’s Goldberg Variations.
Bob, I didn’t know you wanted to forego dialogue. I realize you were not responding to my emails but I hadn’t understood you were just sulking. My query on the previous post was in no way a criticism or a challenge, and I deliberately tried to avoid conveying any sense of that given your delicate sensibilities. In any case, none of this seems in keeping with who you have seemed to be, or what you have written in the past. I’m sorry for that. But I also feel that if you are going to be part of this conversation on Commonweal, and you are going to criticize people (or even sneer at them), you will also have to face challenges. It seems to me to come with the territory.
I will admit to having posted a link to this video on the Ship of Fools discussion board, in full knowledge that such a context would invite a certain amount of ridicule. But is there really anything wrong with ridiculing the ridiculous? I don’t necessarily equate ridicule with cruelty. My children ridicule me all the time and it doesn’t make me doubt that they love me and value me. Indeed, they sometime do me a service by pointing out my ridiculousness, which I can be quite blind to. Furthermore, is sincerity (which the participants undoubtedly are) enough to inoculate us from being ridiculous? I tend to think that the sincerely ridiculous are in a position to benefit most from ridicule.
On the subject of giant puppets in general: someone on Ship of Fools linked to another puppet liturgy from the (in)famous St. Joan of Arc parish in Minneapolis. I looked at it expecting to find it ridiculous, but actually found it quite moving. Perhaps what was different is that this was a Mass for children, not infantalized adults. Sure, the adults got as much out of it as the kids, but it was in the context of “overhearing” something ostensibly aimed at the children, which seems a good, non-infantalizing, non-ridiculous was of adults becoming childlike for a moment. Also, the puppets are clearly linked to the Christian story, and do not come across as Easter Island-like figures.
Todd,
This thread is about the video, not about puppets. And to my mind it is a very serious thread.
People who say they want to be able to think critically about the Church should put their money where their mouths are. When something embarassing happens, critique it honestly, even when it’s on your “side.”
Stuart–
Though the participants were largely Caucasian, I also saw blacks, Hispanics, and perhaps people of Asian background in the audience or participating in the service. See timeframes 2:12 and 3:16, for example. I guess what is multi-racial or multi-ethnic involves a significant subjective assessment, and to my mind the characterization seemed apt. Others may differ, of course.
David Gibson — didn’t you strongly suggest that Fr. Imbelli’s post here was contrary to his previous post, which had said that people are not likely to be correct when they are “hasty and violent, harsh and high-minded, careless of what others feel and disdainful of what they think”? I fail to see any of those qualities in Fr. Imbelli’s post here, which gently pokes fun at something that richly deserves that and much more.
William —
I’m pretty sure that at the times you mention, the only black people are a “dancer” and the homilist; and the only Hispanic or Asian people are doing the scripture readings. (They’re the same folks pictured here: http://www.ctanorcal.org/2008Liturgy.html )
Fr. Imbelli,
Thank you for your reply. I am all for common ground on difficult issues. Unfortunately, the discussions of the Liturgy seem always to run counter to that goal.
It may be that I am in the midst of grading blue books, but I am not sure I understood what common ground you were seeking in this post. You began by noting that in an earlier post on “liberal” vs. “conservative” there appeared to be little common ground on terms. Then you referred to the common ground of wonderment about the behavior of grandparents on, the part of BC students. (Actually, I was amazed to know that BC students would have even been familiar with the video.) Were you attempting to foster yet another type of common ground?
I am all for sentire cum ecclesia, too, as long as “cum” can be translated as “within” and well as “with.”
The theme for Call to Action’s national conference in 2007 was an examination of racism — “from Racism to Reconcilitation: Church Beyond Power and Privilege.” If the west coast group was addressing the same theme that might explain the racial diversity among the puppets.
Racism is a topic that many American Catholics find very uncomfortable and that white American Catholics often try to avoid. Call to Action did something praiseworthy in making racism a theme for their group last year. Under those circumstances, it would have made sense to plan a liturgy in which racially inclusive participation was enacted as an ideal to strive toward.
Stuart–
I don’t know if we’ve entered the realm of diminishing returns yet on this issue, but when I view the video at the 2:12 mark there is an entrance procession comprised of several individuals, excluding dancers, who are not Caucasians. When I view the video at the 3:12 mark, there is a camera shot of a portion of the audience that includes non-Caucasians. I didn’t have time today to go beyond that point, but I also seeing to recall from viewing the video late last night that some members of the musical group were also non-Caucasians.
“Ecclesia semper reformandi.” The Church must always reform itself. If we believe that why are we surprised when we perform reformable acts? Even as I severely criticized what I perceived as ridicule, I am willing to calm down and return to dialogue.
A lot, if not all, of this might be a question of taste. If CTA were to insist that everyone should participate or agree with this liturgy, they will be as deplorable as their detractors. Isn’t this why we think it a good thing that there are many rites in the church? (As far as liturgy is concerned, all of us seem to agree that today the homily is universally bad with exceptions.) CTA sometimes fosters change too readily while others will tolerate no change. I am sure not everyone in CTA (even that day) necessarily liked that expression of liturgy.
We have some high and interesting company in our disagreements on the liturgy. Joseph Ratzinger had no tolerance for Karol W’s acceptance or participation in other liturgies whether dance or ecumenical common prayer.
Vatican II opened our eyes to how rich the liturgy can be. Even in that richness there will be diversity and disagreements. I used to love charismatic prayer groups. Now I am cautious because certain people turnded it into a marathon… Being inflexible is easy. Working things out and having patience with development is time consuming. There is nothing wrong with getting rid of liturgy that is too flippant, as long as we understand that wearing 4th century garb might be ridiculous also.
The restorationist thinking of many in the last two decades has stunted much wonderful growth.
I am not sure whether Alan Mitchell is naive or what. But even in Corinth and other New Testament communities there were conflicts. No one said it was easy.
Bill Mazzella,
Whether I am naive or not is a separate issue from what I wrote about above. If, perhaps, you thought that by common ground I meant an end to conflict, then I was not clear in what I wrote, because I do not believe that at all. The series of letters that make up Second Corinthians shows Paul’s ongoing efforts at establishing common ground in Corinth. Nevertheless, the conflicts never went away.
Alan,
three quick points because I too am involved in grading.
1. my original post’s reference to “common ground” was, to an extent, an exercise in whimsy.
2. the fact that students at B.C. (and presumably elsewhere) came upon the video is no surprise in that it appears on several blogs. In fact, it was a student who first sent it to me, and I used the link he provided.
3. as I tried to state in the comment above, if the video depicts not merely esthetic bad taste, but violation of the order and spirit of the eucharistic liturgy, then this discernment and judgment should not be left to those whose concerns can be labeled (and too easily dismissed as) “conservative.” Isn’t it possible for at least some who identify with dotCom as well as Amy Welborn, and WDTPRS and others to achieve common ground on such discernment? It might even be a small step towards overcoming the divisions which the Pope and you lament.
Of course, I agree with you that “cum” is both with and within. But (I’m sure you agree) “ecclesia,” like the Gospel, has an objective reality and structure that is not reducible to individual or even collective whim or fancy. Thus not only 2nd Corinthians, but 1st Corinthians … and Galatians!
I think it would certainly help if there were some hints as to what the people were thinking who arranged the liturgy we see in the video, but I don’t find any information on the Call to Action website, and I can’t find anything elsewhere either. What do the puppets represent? There is a line about larger-than-life puppets calling people to larger-than-life actions, but that wouldn’t seem to me to be adequate justification.
If someone were to say the puppets were routinely used in worship in the country of Telapia, the Telapians were visiting, and they wanted to show the people of California their way of worship, it would make a big difference in most of our opinions, I think. And if the Telapians spoke a mixture of Spanish and Vietnamese that would explain the multilingual readings. I suspect there isn’t such a “logical” explanation for what we see, but my point is it’s very difficult to judge the video without knowing the thought behind what we see.
I agree with Prof. Bauerschmidt: I am not sure there is anything wrong with ridiculing the ridiculous. Except that the word which leaped to my mind was “appalling.” I don’t think you need to be a liturgy pharisee to think so.
It seems doubtful that this was a licit mass, so perhaps there is less concern that this involves a serious canonical offense. But what is really striking – what puts this in “loopy” categories and well outside the most generous bounds of acceptable Catholic liturgy – is not the bizarre aesthetics, but the theological content. It goes beyond the now-condemned (and it’s really hard to think it does not apply to all sacraments ) “Creater/Redeemer/Sanctifier” language at the end of this event.
No, my concern goes to what Prof. Kaveny alluded to above. Perhaps these CTA members are worshipping – but *what* (or who) are they worshipping? For example: “*We* bless *ourselves* in the name of the Creator, Redeemer, and the Sanctifier”.” It seems like an almost complete anthropocentrization of worship. In other words, it’s hard to conclude other than that they are worshipping themselves. And of course their wonderful diversity, equality, or (fill in the blank).
I’ll pass on the opportunity (too easy, too often indulged on other sites) to mention or mock the apparent venerableness of the particpants – age is something that happens to us all. And this service would be problematic whether the participant median age was seven as much as seventy.
P.S. I am given to understand – but yet to confirm – that this service features Bishop Remi de Roo, Bishop emeritus of Victoria, British Columbia.
Bishop Remi de Roo is identified in at least one of the photo captions on the Call to Action website
http://www.ctanorcal.org/2008Liturgy.html
Interestingly, the web site is unavailable at the moment because of heavy traffic.
Is the web site unavailable or has it been removed?
Nancy,
It’s almost certainly still there. It’s just that either too many people are trying to see it at the same time, or the traffic within a certain time has exceeded its allowance.
I’ve been reading John Allen’s book on the Pope and am intrigued by the part about the silenced liberation theologians. Allen makes an interesting criticism of then-Cardinal Ratzinger: he suggests that R. presumes too much on the consistency of others’ thought systems. Allen seems to be saying that ideas which would, if brought fully to their conclusions, be erroneous, are not on that basis erroneous or misleading. I take him to mean that for a very systematic thinker such as the Pope, an idea exists only as part of a system, whereas for most folks irreconcilable ideas can coexist within the same mind; none trumps the others and becomes the sole system; none is ever played out to its full conclusion. An idea that could be part of a heretical system is not necessarily, for that thinker, a heresy.
That question of consistency is something to keep in mind in pastoral work. Why preach at all, in fact, except for the sake of the half-convinced, ie, all of us?
On the other hand, isn’t the scariest aspect of this video the way it takes a particular case of the post- Vatican II anthropocentric turn and instantiates its logical conclusions?
I know there are valid ways to say that Christians constitute the Church. But there are wrong ways to say it too, and I think it is safe to say that some of the wrong ways have been caught on tape.
The web site is suspended because of excessive bandwidth usage: http://www.ctanorcal.org/
Thanks, David.
Kathy,
“On the other hand, isn’t the scariest aspect of this video the way it takes a particular case of the post- Vatican II anthropocentric turn and instantiates its logical conclusions?”
You have a point there.
Karl Rahner, of course, is well-known for his “anthropological theology.” But I have suggested that a funny thing often happened to Rahner’s theology when it crossed the Atlantic: hearty German brew became rather thin beer.
That is downright “Americanism.”
Bill,
I think you nailed it!
A tip of the “Testem Benevolentiae” to you.
Bob,
And I trust you were duly flogging yourself in that revisiting.
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13teste.htm
Whether one agrees with the assessmen tof the CTA liturgy as “loopy,” the continuing commentary here may well fit that label.
Lots of folk arguing they are right because their opinion is the opinion.
So much for “common ground”, naivete or whimsy aside.
Whicj reminds me, i wonder exactly where the NPLC’s common ground initiative is at at this point, and, how much Tim Russert will bring to their annual lecture table in that regard?
The challenge with blogs. You check out for 24 hours and suddenly you’ve got a 50+ comment thread….
For what it’s worth, I saw Fr. Imbelli’s original post as more gentle poking of fun than any attempt to be “mean.” I’m inclined to think if you do something this odd with the celebration of the Eucharist and post it on the web, you deserve what comes.
I am in agreement with the substantive points made by Fr. Imbelli and Prof. Bauerschmidt. This celebration is not in keeping what what Fr. Imbelli rightly terms the “order and spirit” of the celebration of the Eucharist. I think that most serious teachers, students, and practitioners of the liturgy would not be in favor of this. I don’t think there is any problem with saying that and saying it quite forcefully until the point is made.
What J.Peter Nixon said.
You can intellectualize your comments all you want, I still consider many of the comments mean spirited and demeaning. It is never, never right for intellectuals which I assume many of you are, to ridicule or mock or use other people for your entertainment of diversion. I don’t care how many papers you have to grade. In my opinion, this is not a conversation by true intellectuals, but one similar to that of insecure 6th graders who make fun of anyone who is different.
These worshippers are definitely older, have been through many changes in the church, and amazingly still have faith and are doing the best they can. I doubt many of them are as educated or as “intelligent” as you, but they are a community which has gathered in the name Christ to give him thanks and praise using the meager (in your opinion) talents and abilities God has given them. They are our deserving of respect and should not be used as pawns to score points for your side. They are members of our own family.
By the way, there is a saying (probably from AA) that I think is appropriate to this conversation. It is “You sweep your side of the street and I’ll sweep mine.” Meditate on that saying along with the idea that it might be more important for you to ask, who or what you are worshiping rather than whom or what they are worshiping. I find this conversation disturbing and am surprised to see it on Commonweal.
What Clara said!
I read all these comments with interest. I am one of the organizers of the CTA conference although I wasn’t involved in planning the liturgy. At the outset let me say that what you see in the video is a 5 minute and 23 second slice of a 90 minute or so liturgy. Therefore, you can’t possibly understand what the worship experience, taken as a whole, was like for the community gathered there.
Were the puppets an aid to worship or a hindrance? Surely there are diverse views about that. But what you also don’t know is that the puppets played a role in the entire weekend. In a certain way, they were part of our community for the weekend. I loved them, but I can understand that not all would share my opinion.
Were the worshippers mostly white and grey? Yes. Unfortunately, yes. It was a very small group that pulled this conference together and we just weren’t able to do all the outreach we would have liked. We regretted this before the conference and we continue to regret this. But the unfortunate truth is that way too many younger Catholics find the institutional church to be irrelevant to their lives. Therefore, church reform holds no interest for them. No doubt that is why the recent Pew Study on Religion in America reported that fallen-away Catholics are the second largest religious group in the country. I would love suggestions from any of you on how to reverse this trend at our gatherings.
But was the worship experience as a whole meaningful? Did I walk away with a sense of being fed the spiritual food I need to go out and love my neighbor as myself? Yes! Did I hear a homily that I was still thinking about a week later? You bet (and I can’t tell you how seldom that happens!) And was it refreshing, for a special occasion, to be able to clap my hands and move my body? Absolutely! (Of course, we white folks aren’t really known for bringing our bodies to church.) This wasn’t the contemplative mass that I am used to and love, but it was wonderful and I know it would have spoken to my young adult kids in a way the mass at my local parish just does not.
So next time, please come join us for more than 5 minutes and 23 seconds. You may love the mass, you may hate it. You will know it is a mass, however. And you will be welcome.
Btw, yes, it was Remi de Roo, Bishop Emeritus of Victoria, BC who presided.
Lisa
Lisa,
I applaud your courage in entering into a conversation with a group, that has not shown itself to be particularly friendly to the liturgy depicted in the video.
With regard to the judgement’s made about the liturgy on the basis of the video, I think they were made in good faith, since it was CTA itself that posted the video. I’ve seen enough shaky videos taken by the liturgical GOTCHA! police to know to take those with a grain, or pound, of salt. But it was CTA that posted the video, so I don’t think it was unwarranted to presume that in the eyes of CTA it faithfully represented the spirit of the liturgy that was celebrated.
As to the question of appeal to the young of Church reform groups, I don’t really have any suggestions of how to attract them. My own perception is not unlike yours: there is little serious interest among young people in reforming the Church. Those who don’t like the Church, and they are many, more or less walk away, something that was less thinkable for their parents in the boomer generation, for whom Catholicism had seeped into their bones (why it seeped into the bones of boomers and not their children is another interesting question). Those who have stayed seem more interested in recovering traditions (which is not the same thing as towing the official line on all issues) than in reforming them. At least this is my impression based on anecdotal evidence I have gathered as a teacher of undergraduates and as a deacon in a parish with a fairly high percentage of young adults.
Perhaps “reform” has had its season, for now. I’m sure it will come back. It always has in the past. It just may not be in my lifetime or in yours.
Regarding the preferences of the young: I have no way of knowing whether these observations are typical, but when I distribute Communion at daily Mass, the odds are, I’d say, 70-30 or 30-70 that the communicant will receive in the hand.
-People in their 40s and up: 70 % in the hand
-People in their 20s: 70 % on the tongue
I don’t know what to make of this, quite. Is it a return to traditional forms? Maybe, but remember that these are people who have not gone to extraordinary lengths to avoid the lady EM.
My best hope is that they are receptive. Receptivity is an attitude absent from the Mass in the video. There, the Mass was whatever they could make it.
I don’t know how many of you have ever seen a Catholic charismatic celebration. John Paul II was very supportive of the charismatics and mightily praised them. The Franciscan University in Steubenville, Ohio, is quite conservative and at the same time has been the center for charismatic conferences. Here is a video of one of them. What is your feedback?
http://www.leechvideo.com/video/view1299917.html
Lisa,
I too want to thank you for joining this (perhaps too long) discussion. And I concede that 5 plus minutes out of 90 is by no means exhaustive. But, if it is representative, it raises serious concerns in the minds of some/many — who should not be dismissed as reactionaries or mere academics. May I respectfully suggest that these concerns ought to be taken seriously by those who organized and presided.
Let me insist further that the issue is not the subjective sincerity, much less the state of soul, of the participants. It is, as I tried to express above, the objective integrity of the Church’s eucharistic worship — an integrity whose episcope is the responsibility of the bishop of the local church and not Bishop Remi de Roo.
What is at stake is not less than the apostolic tradition and the communion of the Church Catholic which it founds.
I wish you a blessed feast of Pentecost.
Judging by the comments of Clara Dugan and Lisa Streibing, I’d say that whatever the perceived failings of the CTA liturgy, it was certainly more efficacious than whatever celebration the other posters have been attending. As the bishop in Vermont said about the Latin Mass, “If this is what it takes to get people back to church, then so be it!” Well, maybe we should send some puppets up to BC and hope they foster a mote of Christian charity. “If this is what it takes…”
Just how does it affect the objective integrity of the Eucharist? John Paul II presided at dance at Mass. Is that the objection. Expression is a cultural thing. Just how precisely does it affect the integrity. Specifics please. Up to now we have used generalizations. Give details.
At any rate, it might be a welcome change to go from loopy to specifics. Till now it has just been mockery.
Dave,
Isn’t there a dominical saying about the mote and the beam?
Bill,
The liturgy has room for cultural expressions. It is somewhat flexible.
This is different.
“Multiculturalism” is not the name of a people.
Kathy, you are still general and so is everybody else. Different than your experience. This is really outrageous. Order and spirit of the liturgy? How? Object to puppets. But it is ok for children. A concession which paves the way for more, especially when we only saw a small portion as the person present pointed out. The other objection was the Creator, Sanctifier…
Certainly this describes God. Oh not the way you know. Look at how the fathers of the church differ.
Liturgy is ritual. In the Lord’s Supper all should center around the life, crucifixion, and resurrection. How was it not done here?
I gave an example of the ultra conservative Steubenville charismatics in action. Many cannot stomach this. Especially when people start speaking in tongues. Alright because it has official sanction?
Luke Timothy Johnson writes about the “complete Jettisoning” of tradition. Where is that true here? We heard the exact words of consecration, in the little we saw.
Quite amazing!
At any rate on a personal note, my daughter got engaged tonight to an Irishman no less. Such a gentleman he came to me and my wife a couple of days ago and asked permission to marry her. Tonight (so she told us moments ago) he got on one knee and proposed. Now that tradition works for us. But not everyone. God be with them.
Bill: Congratulations on your daughter’s engagment. I did the knee thing in a restaurantt and everyone who witnessed it bought us so much wine that I was asked for the first and only time by the manager of a restaurant about how I was planning on getting home (taxi!). My wife’s parents had both passed away before we got married, so the knee had to be the limit of my traditionalism.
However, on to more controverisal matters. At issue here is the criteria for good liturgy. Now, you just noted that the exact words of consecration were heard. It that the sufficient criterion for a good liturgy? Whatever else happens is irrelevant? I think I understand your take on church and tradition enough to believe you would not conclude as such. When then can one say that liturgy has gone the wrong direction?
The criterion for good liturgy cannot be that one has had a meaningful experience. God is at stake in liturgy. One is not being overly intellectual by asking whether or not liturgy guides one closer to God or closer to to idols. One is not being a snob or indifferent to those who come seeking God to ask if there is a difference between the Good News and any old news that some happen to find good. No, one is precisely worrying about those who come seeking Good News.
Which is worse: to suffer the fate of Nadab and Abihu (Lev. 10:1-2) or to conclude that God just doesn’t care? I once heard the fate of Nadab and Abihu explained and defended on the grounds that God has high expectations for those to who draw closest to God. Can I find comfort in the thought that I am so far from God that God has no expectations of me?
Joe, I ask this without the least bit of sarcasm. Rather, it is a question in which I have genuine interest in your response. If the criterion for good liturgy is whether it guides one closer to God, how can you be sure, really sure, after watching (but not being present for) a small fraction of the liturgy, that the CTA liturgy did not do this? And at lease as important, by what criteria do you measure whether one has drawn closer to God? One measure would be by how broadly one casts one’s net of compassion (Matt 25). What if the 200 or so people present largely felt fed, felt more prepared to go out into the world to be the heart and hands of Christ and then did just that?
Lisa
Joe,
Again specifics. Do you object to the puppets, the word Sanctifier. Help me out here.
Lisa, I would ask you to give us a more detailed explanation of the liturgy. But I hesitate since the level of listening here, at least on this point, does not seem to be sharp. Once you explain then they will use that. At this point none of your critics seem to know anything about the liturgy presented. Yet the objections are plentiful. Go figure.
Creative liturgy will not always be a success, that is the price of trying to be creative. The people who pounce on “abuses” have done nothing to renew liturgy, except call for the retrograde return to the 1962 rite.
Bill Mazzella is right — it is rather shocking to describe the worship of one’s fellow Christians as “loopy”. The liturgical civil war that the Motu Proprio threatens to kindle will only be exacerbated by such name-calling.
Lisa’s reply shows the all-importance of context: “Were the puppets an aid to worship or a hindrance? Surely there are diverse views about that. But what you also don’t know is that the puppets played a role in the entire weekend. In a certain way, they were part of our community for the weekend. I loved them, but I can understand that not all would share my opinion.” I believe that both in theology and in liturgy we should be over-accepting rather than picky in reacting to our neighbor’s views and attitudes. Presume that everyone is in good faith. Look for the perspective in which their “loopy” ideas or actions make sense. The alternative to over-acceptance is barren polarization, which makes the Church a very unattractive place indeed.
O’Leary ter locutus est; causa finita est!
And “Ex abundantia cordis, os loquit.”
I would like to thank the folks at Google who make it possible for me to follow the Latin that has emerged.
Lisa: Of course I cannot get into the heads and hearts of those gathered, and, just to be very clear, I do not question the sincerity of anyone present or anyone who was involved in organizing the liturgy. What I do question are two things which I see over and over in the liturgies of those with whom I should most want to be in solidarity – those seeking a new vision of the church. First, what I find is a celebration of diversity, almost always seeming to disolve into a celebration of the self. Instead, as I indicated in an earlier post on this thread, I think we should have celebration of unity leading always to proclamation of God’s presence in our lives and in our world. This proclamation is aided by liturgy that reflects both God’s relation to us as well as God’s infinite difference from us. I also find in far too many worship services a kind of theological incoherence that serves only to obscure God rather than guiding one closer to God. For example, I cannot be larger than life, no matter how hard I try. When we speak of a movie star seeming larger than life we are having our minds impressed by a fiction. But I do not need a fiction to believe in something larger than me, whether that fiction is a movie star or a puppet, because I already have God whom I am commanded to love with all I have, and God’s creation, especially as found in my neighbor, whom I am commanded to love as myself. Perhaps some will find this academic intellectualization of liturgy, and I guess there is not much I can do about that perception.
Bill: I think that the cult of the self can find its way into conservative and charismatic worhsip services as well. I once went to a Catholic charismatic wedding (something I had never seen in over 25 years of being Catholic) where at the end of every song, everyone in the congregation thrust their hands into the air, swayed back and forth, and started mumbling. I was struck by an almost overwhelming desire to turn around and scream, “Tongues is supposed to be a gift, not an entitlement!” I do not care for worship services where it seems that one is a contest with those present to demonstrate a greater level of faith than the one seated next to you.
Clare, I am not an intellectual, but I stand by the belief of the Catholic Church that the Eucharist is to be the main focus of the Mass. This liturgy was a complete distraction of the Eucharist, causing one to focus anywhere but on the Eucharist. It does not show respect for the Passion of Christ. Alan C. Mitchell, regarding your comment of May 8th, at 8:04, it is this
“anything” goes attitude that is causing division in the Catholic Church in the first place.
First, a footnote to Nancy: having the last word and making assertions about others based on just your viewpoint gets us nowhere and is unhelpful.
This thread is probably too long, but i think it neds be observed that some commentary her ehas been outright snarky (snotty?) eith some intellectual prode mingled in. I offer my own mea culpa to that.
Still, I think this thread should go on in a broader context, viz. I am amazed the tension that seems to exists here between academe and pastoral practice. It strikes me it wasn’t always so. My guess, at the risk of raising more hackles, is the problem is rooted in the retrenchmen twe’re seeing in the Church and the kicking back by folk who don’t beleive that leadership is expressing continuity with Vatican II.
Bob, since when is the focus of the Eucharist as the main focus of the Mass, a matter of viewpoint? One does not have to be an academic to understand that. This is something I was taught in Second Grade as I was being prepared to receive my First Holy Communion.
P.S. Who said I have the last word?
Some prescient humanoid being thought to youtube the clip: http://youtube.com/watch?v=NSbiL3XduvY
Would someone kindly, or even unkindly, explain what elements of this discussion of been academic or intellectual in any bad sense of those terms.
Er, that would be “have been academic or intellectual in any bad sense of those terms.”
One of the main reasons for the failure of the new liturgy is the way the vigilantes moved in from the start, denouncing any creativity in the liturgy as an abuse, or even as impugning the validity of the Eucharist. Because of the air of iron constaint surrounding Catholic liturgies — with their drab and ununderstood readings, their wretched music, their frozen presiders dutifully reading the flat English of the texts without variation or adornment — I, like many of my devote Catholic friends, find myself drawn to the Anglican services where one can be certain of good music, well-practiced readings, an excellent sermon, a vibrant, sometimes exuberant, community atmosphere with much sharing of prayers and planned charitable activities (not self-worship but being joyful together in the Lord), and a quite meaningful celebration of the eucharistic action itself as the normal culmination of the rite — Christ’s presence in the paschal meal as the culmination of his presence in the community and his presence in the proclaimed and preached word. When will Catholics outgrow their nervous, sectarian idolatrous fixation on orthodoxy and realize what the Spirit is teaching them through their sister churches?
Nancy Danielson,
I do not find your assessment of the cause of division in the Church to be helpful or compelling. What purpose is there in assigning blame for a rather complicated situation in today’s Church to a general “anything goes attitude”? I know this is a standard straw man argument that some more traditionally minded Catholics use to explain why they cannot live in the kind of Church they want. I read it often on blogs of a more traditional bent where I find it frequently embedded in a rant about this priest (usually Fr. McBrien) or that nun (usually Sr. Chittister) or those liberals who have gotten us where we are today. Not infrequently and oft noted in relation to the video under discussion here this frustration is accompanied by explicit wishes for a previous generation of Catholics to die out so that the complainants can finally have the Church they long for. What I have a hard time grasping is why after a quarter century of John Paul II’s papacy and at the beginning of one that promises to be even more traditional, such individuals are still locating the source of their discontent in the liturgy of the 1970′s. Why blame others and times gone by for one’s own unhappiness? I wonder, too, if the “smaller and purer” Church they hope for just over the horizon, will actually ever be realized, for I suspect that for these individuals the Church will never be Catholic enough. I do not find much of an “anything goes” attitude in today’s Church. In fact, sometimes I wonder if anything is going at all. I believe those who feel as you do that this is the root of the problem might do better to look elsewhere, perhaps beginning within.
With all due respect, Alan, I support the teaching of the Magisterium, the Pope and all Bishops who are in communion with him. I also support any Theologian who defends and explains the Truth in a way that is consistent with the teaching of the Magisterium. The Truth has been consistent for some 2,000 years. It will not change. Why would I support theology that is not consistent with Catholic Doctrine? I support Christ’s Grand Unification Plan out of Charity for all. Don’t you think it is an awesome plan?
May the Holy Spirit, the Union of the Love between the Father and the Son, God’s Great Love and God’s Great Mercy, bring all of you Peace.
Alan,
Is it possible to be a Catholic while outright disbelieving a central article of faith? For example, if a baptized person really doesn’t think Jesus is Lord, is the Catholic identity still there? This is a thorny question, with objections and support on all sides. Canonically, a recent clarification indicates that an explicit public repudiation is necessary to cause a separation.
That question is difficult. These, however, seem to me to be no-brainers. But I’mguessing that for you, they are not. Could be wrong.
-Should someone who rejects an article of the Creed be teaching CCD, or undergraduate students at a Catholic college?
-Should such a person design Catholic church buildings?
-Should such a person work as a ministry professional in a parish or diocese?