A blog by the magazine's editors and contributors


Quid, me vexare?

As you can see, I learned a lot of Latin (and some of my basic outlook on life) from MAD Magazine. And it pretty much reflects how I feel about the Motu Propio--nice for those who want to hear the Mass in Latin again, but I don't worry that it'll turn the tide from the vernacular Mass by a long shot.

Anyhoo, please carry one the arguments in threads below (I think it says in the Catechism that you're not Catholic if you don't argue), but I thought it might be interesting to get some quick responses to this fill-in-the-blank statement:

"The WORST thing about giving parishes more freedom to choose the Latin Mass is [your thoughts here in no more than three lines, please.]

My guess is that the worst that can happen just isn't really that bad.


Commenting Guidelines

I would have been personally furious at having to sit through marriage renewal vows, and at a few of the other things that Jean recited. However, I do not believe that I should be required to adopt Latin in order to avoid these things. By "segregating" people who are really offended by these things in a Latin service, the pope is furthering the divide not healing it by addressing more forthrightly abuses such as those Jean cited. In reality, we know that most people will continue to do as Jean did and choose another parish that is more suitable.

Fr. Matthew,No need to apologize; it is nice to see the truth, the real truth about priestly behaviour in print for a change. When you wrote:"One thing that is ecumenical between liberal and conservative priests is the fact that they foist things on parishes all the time because they think it's a good idea." So you have been to my parish, eh!As for the return of Latin, I thought 40 plus years ago, why couldn't we have a little diversity in the Mass but no the same kind of thinking decreed the vernacular and now I have no interest in such a Mass. So long as no one imposes it on others I can live with it, but given the propensity of religious people to believe that they have the one and only true practice this could end up as divisive as...well you name it.

Maid of Kent, you are "surprised" at my earlier comments :) ? Come on, you of all people should know better!There is NO way I am going to support this move by a pope to widen the use of an obsolete liturgy that:a. Helped sustain the sinful clerical culture in the Catholic Church, andb. Became (centuries ago) so irrelevant to Catholic laity that they ended up devising non-liturgical devotions in order to maintain some sense of connection to what should have been, after all, their church --- and Jesus.For more information on point b., please see Klaus Gamber's The Reform of the Roman Rite, Keith Peckler's Worship: A Primer on Christian Ritual, and --- get this -- Josef Ratzinger's 1966 reflections about Vatican II's recognition of the need to revamp the Mass.I also recommend the following article is "Sacrosanctum Concilium: A Lawyer Examines the Loopholes" by Christopher Ferrara.

The bishops at Vatican II knew exactly what they were doing.Nonetheless, safety in numbers?

Heaven forbid that the laity should engage in extra-liturgical devotions! The horror...The horror...

The worst thing that could happen?Repeal of Vatican II in the classic Catholic form: we forgot.

I don't believe we will forget. Not as long as we keep reading the documents.

Hello Barbara,"Within any parish there will be people whose language preference can't be accommodated. For instance, in my parish there is a contingent of Brazilians who speak Portuguese."To be sure. But then Portuguese isn't the official language of the Church, either. Again, I think the focus on language is a red herring. Take the 1962 missal and translate it straight into English with absolutely no other changes in rubrics, form, lectionary, vestments, etc., and you still end up with a liturgy vastly different than that found in most parishes. Thoughtful critics of the TLM, I think, have to bear this in mind, if they really want to come to grips with the attraction it has for some Catholics. Hello Joseph,I am perplexed to see Gamber held up as a critic of the traditional rite given his (rather famous) position as an ardent defender of the same and promoter of its restoration.He did accept some of the critiques offered by the Liturgical Reform Movement, and it was in that context that he made some of the remarks you allude to. But it is impossible to suggest he believed in the mass as "irrelevant" to the lives of the faithful for centuries. I think Ratzinger's views have developed, but then there is also nothing in his criticisms of the liturgy in the 50's and 50's which suggest that he anticipated many of the changes which actually ended up taking place. P.S. Clerical cultures seems all too alive and well now even after 40 years of the Pauline missal. Maybe there is something deeper at work than liturgical language and rubrics.

Kathy... Reading the document is always inspiring, but remembering the WHY of the council that produced the documents is as important. Not sure the American Catholic sense of history reaches back more than a decade.

Margaret, the documents are normative. Granted, the "why's" are occasionally helpful in trying to interpret the documents, but the "why's" are also open to interpretation, and, let's face it, "spin." For me, I prefer to read the documents.

R.M. Lender, MOK's raises objections are on pastoral grounds ("I am surprised that you would applaud a pastor publicly stating that certain Catholics will not be ministered to in his parish."). This isn't an official language argument. Taking the time and effort to minister to some people in Latin might actually prevent the priest from being able to minister to others (let's say, those in nursing homes or the deaf or whatever). Also, I think it's a stretch to say that Latin is the "official" language of the church for reasons set forth by others. Obviously, it is very closely identified with Church tradition and history. But to use the desire for a Latin service as a trump card for ordering pastoral priorities seems to me to be an unfair argument.

Repeal of Vatican II in the classic Catholic form: we forgot.I thing the more accurately classic Catholic form begins with: "As the Church has always taught ......", particularly when it hasn't "always taught."

See today's boston Globe article, "Goodbye Vatican II."

Maybe it's time to move on to other topics (just a suggestion ...), and there are many good ones above.I'm sorry to say that I'm really on the fence on this issue despite the 60+ posts my attempt to get to some sort of bottom line. Thanks to all and a hello to jborst, whom I've missed! I think the motu propio, which allows parishes to use the Latin form without having to get express permission from the bishop stops far short of a complete reversal of Vatican II. Perhaps Latin-creep bears watching, but I think it's premature to fortell the demise of Vat2 just now.Neither do I think Latin masses are going to prevent (though it may quell) the kind of chumminess that has crept into the vernacular masses.The priest may have to turn his back at some points, but he'll turn around to give his homily (presumeably NOT in Latin), and there will still be a peace and a recessional, and that's where the ad-libbing goes on.

To R.M. Lender:"[One of the] root cause[s] for the debacle of today's modern liturgy [is] the phenomenon of individual piety, which originated in the Gothic period [12th to 15th centuries]. During that period, the people's active participation in the cult of liturgical worship...ceased to be the central theme; instead, it was the personal, the individual relationship to God and His grace, developed in private prayer, that predominated."More and more, the actual performance of the Church's liturgical rites became the responsibility of the clergy. The faithful were present and remained silent observers following the ceremonies while praying and contemplating. Special, non-liturgical "devotional services" were introduced to the faithful; they made use of the vernacular, and were meant to reflect 'religio moderna,' the new ideal of piety."The consequence of this development was that the gap between liturgical cult and popular piety grew ever wider. The people were enthralled with all the non-liturgical devotions, which quickly expanded to include many different processions, like the Corpus Christi Day procession, which traces its origin to this time. Also, pilgrimages grew in popularity.""[This] period of a first 'liturgical movement' in the late Middle Ages, and of the radical reforms started by Luther and other reformers, was followed by a period of reaction when the Council of Trent established rigorous rules governing liturgical worship; in particular, the rule prohibiting the use of the vernacular." The result was the 'Missale Romanum' of 1570 with its "strictly prescribed rubrics."After Trent came the Baroque period (1550 - 1750). "[T]he people, although they were able to partake in the celebration of the Mass in their hearts and minds, could not be active participants in the formal liturgy. Thus, new forms of popular piety emerged, for example, the Forty-Hour Devotion during the Easter Vigil, or the many devotions Mary. They were deeply rooted in religious practice."The new forms of piety, together with the formal liturgical worship attracting the faithful with its solemnity and ceremonial splendor, were the pillars on which the Counter Reformation's newly restored Catholicism rested."Klaus GamberThe Reform of the Roman Liturgy"Traditionally [before the 13th c.], there were different liturgical books used by the appropriate liturgical minister --- the Sacramentary for the one presiding; the Lectionary for the lector; the book of the gospels for the deacon....But as those ministries were gradually subsumed [during the 13th century] into the same individual --- the priest --- the idea of a missal made sense, not only for a travelling pope and itinerant [Franciscan] friars, but also for the whole Church. Not surprisingly, the 'private' Mass grew in popularity. Even when there was a congregation present, the priest was still obliged to recite all the readings and liturgical texts silently to himself as they were proclaimed or sung by others. This concept would gradually gain ground, reaching its climax in 1570 with the promulgation of Pius V's Missal for the whole Church, which remained authoritative for four hundred years until the Second Vatican Council."The 'distancing of God' was especially acute at the Eucharist. Unleavened bread was introduced in the West in the eleventh century. Since the laity had ceased the practice of frequent communion, the bringing of bread and wine from the home no longer made sense...Increasingly, there was an emphasis on adoring the Eucharist rather than sharing it....The sanctuary or presbyterium became the 'holy of holies' where only the clergy were welcome. The lay faithful kept their distance and were separated by a 'roodscreen' made of wood, clearly demarcating the liturgical space; gradually that barrier became more opaque. Choirs replaced the laity in singing the Mass; the procession of the laity with the gifts ceased; private Masses abounded....[L]iturgy had become the property of the clergy so much so that liturgical books even failed to acknowledge the presence of the laity at public Masses. The normative way of celebrating Mass was essentially without a congregation, even when a congregation was present...."As Christian worship became increasingly distant from the faithful, it was no surprise that popular devotions grew. From the eleventh through the thirteenth centuries we find significant growth in Eucharistic adoration and benediction, forty-hours devotion and Corpus Christi processions, Marian devotions (e.g. the rosary), novenas, and prayers to the saints....Popular devotions gave the laity a role --- prayers which they could offer as the priest offered the sacrifice of the Mass...."Within the liturgy, however, the laity remained passive spectators. When communion was given it tended to occur before or after Mass but not during. Members of the faithful could make their 'spiritual communion' with the priest as he communicated himself. They were convinced that they were too unworthy to do otherwise. Miracles grew during this period, especially regarding the Eucharist. Gone were the days when the assembly saw itself as the body of Christ and received the Eucharist both symbolizing their own membership in that body and communion with one another. The Mass had become the priest's offering..."Around 1200, the host and chalice came to be elevated during the Eucharistic Prayer and a bell was rung to alert the assembly that the consecration had arrived..."In this same era, Masses celebrated with corresponding stipends for 'special intentions' grew, believing that the more Masses one could have said, the more grace would be obtained either for deceased relatives and friends or for the living. 'Chantry priests' or 'altarists' as they were called in England were kept quite busy celebrating Mass continually throughout the day to keep up with the demand; some celebrated as many as 25 or 30 Masses per day, each of which came with a stipend. The German liturgical scholar Adolf Adam notes that by the fifteenth century in Breslau there were 236 'altarists' at two churches celebrating Mass all day, every day...Greater stipends were given to priests who elevated the host for a longer time. Obviously, wealthier Christians were the ones who could afford such Masses and therefore the poorer members of the Church were at a disadvantage for obtaining grace on behalf of their loved ones. More money came to be equated with greater possibilities for grace, the remission of sin, and especially 'the shortening of one's sentence' in purgatory....""[M]agical interpretations of the Eucharist abounded and the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries witnessed further liturgical decay....The main concern was with the 'fruits' of the Mass and the application of those fruits to particular intentions and individuals. It was more advantageous to have a Mass said for one person than to be offered for individuals together with others. This opinion was fuelled by the duplication of Masses --- one intention per Mass since priests were forbidden to accept several stipends for the same Mass...Clericalism did not abate and apathy was on the rise as lay Catholics were increasingly disillusioned with their clergy."Keith PecklersWorship: A Primer in Christian RitualRegarding "the opening of the [Second Vatican] Council in Rome,...[d]id it make sense for 2,500 bishops , not to mention the other faithful there, to be relegated to the role of mere spectators at a ceremony in which only the celebrants and the Sistine Choir had a voice. Was not the fact that the active participation of those present was not required symptomatic of a wrong that needed remedy?"At Vatican II, "[m]ystery had to be restored to priority over devotion, and simple structure had to replace the rampant overgrowth of forms....Ritual rigidity, which almost obliterated the meaning of individual actions, had to be defrosted. The liturgy of the Word had to be restored...The dialogical nature of the whole liturgical celebration and its essence as the common service of the People of God had to be once more fully emphasized....""A special objective of liturgical reform...was a more active participation of the laity..."John XXIII's Constitution "Veterum sapientia." which appeared shortly before Vatican II, "showed a significant predilection for the Latin language...It was not uncommon that glowing panegyrics in favor of Latin were themselves delivered in labored pidgin Latin, while the most forceful advocates of the vernacular could express themselves in classical Latin."Melchite Patriarch Maximos Saigh said the following at Vatican II:"It appears to me that the almost absolute value which is attributed to the Latin language in the liturgy, in instruction and in the administration of the Latin Church presents a kind of anomaly for the Eastern Church; for without doubt Christ spoke to his contemporaries in their own language. He used a language which was understandable to all his hearers, namely Aramaic, when he celebrated the first eucharistic sacrifice. The apostles and disciples acted likewise. It would never have occurred to them that the celebrant in a Christian assembly should read the passages of scripture, should sing the psalms, should preach or break the bread, using a different language than that of the congregation. Paul himself says explicitly: 'If you bless with the spirit [i.e., in an unintelligible language], how is one whol is present as an outsider to say "Amen" to your thanksgiving when he does not understand what you are saying? You may give thanks well enough, but the other is not edified....In church I should prefer to speak five words with my mind, in order to instruct others, than ten thousand words in [unintelligible] tongues' (1 Cor. 14, 16-19). All the reasons one can bring forward in favor of the untouchaility of Latin --- a liturgical language but a dead one --- must give way before this clear, unequivocal and precise reasoning of the Apostle. The Latin language is dead, but the Church remains alive. So, too, the language which mediates grace and the Holy Spirit must also be a living language since it is intended for men and not for angels. No language can be untouchable....""For it can hardly be denied that the sterility to which Catholic theology and philosophy had in many ways been doomed since the end of the Enlightenment was due not least to a language in which the living choices of the human spirit no longer found a place. Theology often bypassed new ideas, was not enriched by them and remained unable to transform them.""In the late Middle Ages, awareness of the real essence of Christian worship increasingly vanished. Great importance was attached to externals, and these choked out essentials. "The essence of the ancient Christian liturgy in the texts was no longer visible in the overgrowth of pious additions....The Catholic reaction to Luther's attack took place at Trent. The reaction was on the whole inadequate, even if it did eliminate the worst abuses and make possible a certain measure of rebirth...."Liturgicall authority would be centralized in the Sacred Congregation of Rites, "the post-conciliar organ for implementation of the liturgical ideas of Trent....New overgrowths were in fact prevented, but the fate of the liturgy in the West was now in the hands of a strictly centralized and purely bureaucratic authority. This authority completely lacked historical perspective; it viewed the liturgy solely in terms of ceremonial rubrics, treating it as a kind of problem of proper court etiquette for sacred matters. This resulted in the complete archaizing of the liturgy, which now passed from the stage of living history, became embalmed in the status quo and was ultimately doomed to internal decay. The liturgy had become a rigid, fixed and firmly encrusted system; the more out of touch with genuine piety, the more attention was paid to its prescribed forms. We can see this if we remember that none of the saints of the Catholic Reformation drew their spirituality from the liturgy. Ignatius of Loyola, Theresa of Avila and John of the Cross developed their religious life solely from personal encounter with God and from individual experience of the Church, quite apart from the liturgy and any deep involvement with it."The baroque era [1550 - 1750] adjusted to this situation by superimposing a kind of para-liturgy on the archaized actual liturgy. Accompanied by the splendor of orchestral performance , the baroque high Mass became a kind of sacred opera in which the chants of the priest functioned as a kind of periodic recitative. The entire performance seemed to aim at a kind of festive lifting of the heart, enhanced by the beauty of a celebration appealing to the eye and ear. On ordinary days, when such display was not possible, the Mass was frequently covered over with devotions more attractive to the popular mentality. EVEN LEO XIII RECOMMENDED THAT THE ROSARY BE RECITED DURING MASS IN THE MONTH OF OCTOBER [emphases Joe J's]. In practice this meant that while the priest was busy with his archaic liturgy, the people were busy with their devotions to Mary. They were united with the priest only by being in the same church with him and by consigning themselves to the sacred power of the eucharistic sacrifice...."With the end of the baroque period, the force of the baroque para-liturgy also went into decline, although in some regions it remained very much alive. The endeavors of the Sacred Congregation of Rites to preserve old forms had obviously resulted in the total impoverishment of the liturgy. If the Church's worship was once again to become worship of God in the fullest sense --- i.e., for all the faithful --- then it had to get away from fixed forms. The wall of Latinity had to be breached if the liturgy were again to function either as proclamation or as invitation to prayer. Experiments in 'de-Latinization' by smaller groups or through the use of interpreters soon proved insufficient. It was now clear that behind the protective skin of Latin lay hidden something that even the surgery performed at Trent had failed to remove. The simplicity of the liturgy was still overgrown with superfluous accretions of purely historical value. It was now clear, for example, that the selection of biblical texts had frozen at a certain point and hardly met the needs of preaching. The next step was to recognize that the necessary revamping could not take place simply through purely stylistic modifications, but also required a new theology of divine worship. Otherwise the renewal would be no more than superficial. To put it briefly, the task only half finished at Trent had to be tackled afresh and brought to a more dynamic completion."This also meant that the problems which Luther and the reformers had seen in the liturgy had to be dealt with once again. Not the least of these was their objection to the rigidity and uniformity already evident then in the ceremonies. The point was not, of course, for the Catholic Church to somehow work toward the positions of the Reformation....[T]he amputation performed by the reformers could not supply any model for Catholic liturgical reform."But the questions the reformers raised could well serve to spur a return to the ancient Christian heritage...."If we view [Vatican II's] initiatives for liturgical reform in their historical context, then we may well consider them a basic reversal. The value of the reform will of course substantially depend on [post-conciliar developments]. The problems and hopes of liturgical reform anticipate some of the crucial problems and hopes of ecclesiastical reform in general. Will it be possible to bring contemporary man into new contact with the Church, and through the Church into new contact with God? Will it be possible to minimize centralism without losing unity? Will it be possible to make divine worship the starting point for a new understanding among Christians? These three questions represent three hopes, all bound up with liturgical reform, and all in line with the basic intentions of the recent Council."Joseph RatzingerTheological Highlights of Vatican II1966(My thanks to Fr. Komonchak for bringing this book to dotCommonweal's readers' attention a few months back!)While Gamber did not like the Novus Ordo and regarded it, if I recall, as a clear break with liturgical tradition, he did see need for making changes to the Tridentine (one historian has noted that Gamber believed that the new rite allowed for too much lay participation [!!!] at Mass). It has been said elsewhere that human products tend to take on accretions over time. Our liturgy is no exception. As one fellow blogger here put it recently, it would not take long to celebrate the original Last Supper. It was only after Christianity became legal, so to speak, that bishops took on the imperial trappings --- as well as some of the civil authoritiy over their "flocks" --- that had previously been the domain of Roman rulers. And, of course, we should not forget that Latin was a vernacular concession to Christians in Rome itself. And not least, let's not overlook the growing separation between clergy and laity facilitated by continued use of Latin and an official liturgy that pretty much left the laity to themselves in the nave while the priest was up on the altar in his own little world. Even Gamber, as seen above, notes the growth of clericalism as the Mass increasingly became the exclusive domain of the ordained. The laity had to devise their own (to use Ratzinger's words) "para-liturgical" devotions to remain connected to the church. Maybe Gamber did not use the word 'irrelevant,' but he certainly portrayed communal conditions that, by any reasonable standard, made the liturgy irrelevant to the average guy or gal in church (unless, I suppose, he or she had the financial wherewithall to pay the 'altarist' for a Mass).As for your contention that Ratzinger did not anticipate many of the liturgical changes flowing from Sacrosanctum Concilium, I don't know. Hindsight is 20/20. We do know that he "did a 180" following the 1968 student revolts in Germany. As Hans Kung noted in a recent news report, Ratzinger "got more and more conservative, more and more frightened." Let's not forget, too, that he was ONLY a priest at the council, and SC with all its "loopholes" was approved overwhelmingly by the world's bishops. Were they hoodwinked? There are those who say yes, and others who say no. As for the clerical culture, I think it stands to reason that culture develops over the long haul and cannot be changed in a mere 40 years --- especially in an institution as old and as big as the Catholic Church. And, yes, even with measures for transparency and accountability, there will always be guys and gals in positions of authority (rectories/convents/monasteries/etc.) who will succumb to psychopathological weakness and prey on the vulnerable. The Mass is the single most important "part" of the Catholic Church. As Sr. Joan Chittister notes in her column in NCR, the priest is the "mediator" in the Tridentine liturgy; everyone approaches/encounters God through this one individual. He is, in effect, elevated above the laity. He is "special." There are laity who gravitate toward this model of church, and there are priests and bishops who are only too willing to oblige. When the ordained are seen as men of divine privilege and favor, we have a recipe for human failure and scandal --- except, of course, we know how "preventing scandal to the faithful" is handled in this kind of church, don't we?We now officially have two churches under one Roman roof. Those who don't heed the lessons of history are bound to have such lessons visited upon successive generations. Quite frankly, in light of all the recent scandals and the lessons of liturgical history, I find Benedict's decision to be most irresponsible.What a shame! But, then, what else might we expect from a frightened old man?

I agree (as I find I often do) with Jean -- I find the argument that restoration of access to the Latin Mass when requested by the laity marks the demise of VII to be very premature and alarmist -- as are the arguments that it will somehow 'recover what was lost' for those who seek that outcome.Joseph, thank you for posting that extended excerpt, I found it very interesting and enlightening. I think we still arrive at some different conclusions on this issue (especially your contention that we now 'officially have two churches'), but I have no problem with that.I have 'eavesdropped' on this blog among others for some time and I have to say in the main this is one of the best, with some of the consistantly best and most thoughtful posters out there, on all sides of the issues.RM

Also Joseph I am curious, what do you think the Pope is 'frightened' of? I have an idea myself (though I'd say 'worried' or 'concerned' rather than 'frightened') but I'd be interested to hear others'.

Robert, thanks for your feedback. I think we now officially have two churches under one Roman roof because:a. The divine liturgy is the single most important reality in the Catholic Church;b. We now have two liturgical formats that, as Sr. Joan Chittister recently observed, reflect different undersandings of church and of Christianity, of one's view of one's place and role in the church, etc. (As you might gather, the significance here is not in the number of formats but, rather, in the ecclesiological and other underpinnings of these very different forms.)I believe Benedict is frightened because:a. I've read various articles that say as much and that seemed reasonable,b. I've read some of Benedict's pronouncements, formal/otherwise, that express his concern about the direction of the church following Vatican II,c. Hans Kung, who possibly knows Ratzinger as well as anybody, has mentioned his view that the pope is rather alarmed at what has transpired in the church over the past 40 years,d. I have interpreted issuances during JPII's pontificate (issuances that were, by all accounts, influenced by Ratzinger's thinking) as betraying an official church leadership turning increasingly inward --- kind of a "circle the wagons" sort of thing, ande. I pay attention to a person's body language, etc. (allowing, of course, for the influence age on the human body :).I think the pope is more than worried or concerned. Perhaps we're talking about depth of concern.

Well I agree completely that the Pope is concerned / worried / afraid about the direction of the Church post VII. But I think his real 'fear' is not of what has happened in the Church, but of what has happened in the world. The secularization of Europe, the dilution of Catholic identity and decline in church attendance/seminaries, loss of authority and credibility in the wake of the scandals -- he worries about these because he fears they have weakened the Church in the face of the real enemy, secularism and moral relativism. He does not tremble in fear of Sr. Joan or VOTF for their own sakes -- the Church has weathered far greater challenges. But the biggest challenge facing it by far today is the challenge of secularism -- I think he knows this and fears that some the VII-inspired changes (or rather, changes justified in the name of VII) have left the Church vulnerable to that.Sometimes we (especially Americans and of both stripes) forget that it's not all about us. I think the Pope realize the stakes are much higher. We can (and undoubtedly do) disagree about the efficacy of his prescription, but I do not doubt his sincerity of purpose nor do I think it charitable or accurate to reduce it the clearly belittling image of 'a frightened old man'.If it must be used, not to harp on it, but often the people on the other side of his arguments sound alot more like the frightened old people to me. RM

No one denies the societal changes you've outlined.However, JPII and now Benedict going on the offensive to restore or preserve "orthodoxy" is a sign of fear, not of courage: fight or flight. Neither approach works in addressing the matters you've identified. Benedict has, however, managed to alienate women, Muslims (trip to Turkey notwithstanding), Protestants, Jews, and not a few Catholics fed up or embarrassed with Rome. I can't speak for other "old" or "almost old" people, but I'm just plain fed up with Benedict and his predecessor's legacy. I'll try to place my trust in the Lord's promise that the church will be OK through thick and thin. Vatican II did the same. However, I, for one, shall not succumb to the handwringing and fear that pervades the corridors in Rome.Jesus instructed his disciples to "go forth," not to "circle the wagons."