WILL THE REAL ISLAM PLEASE STAND UP?
SO MANY YEARS, SO MANY LITURGICAL ABUSES
THEODORACOPULOS ON FLEMING ON JOHNSON
Dear Friend of Catholic Answers:
I didn't watch the Super Bowl, not being a devotee of the religion of professional sports, but I did see the commercials. They were shown later on AOL.
When I drove into the office parking lot yesterday morning, right behind me was a FedEx truck. I was tempted to ask the driver if he had had any run-ins with pterodactyls but thought the better of it. He probably had been asked that too many times already.
RELIGION OF PEACE?
Religions can be assessed by their official writings and by their public manifestations. Sometimes the two are closely correlated, sometimes not. Mormonism teaches that it's wrong to swear, and I've never heard a foul word from a Mormon. Quakers teach non-violence, and I've never heard of a Quaker being arrested for starting a brawl. But what about Islam?
Ever since September 11, leaders of state and Church have been assuring us that "Islam is a religion of peace," even though certain passages of the Koran are difficult to square with that idea and even though Islam's historical expansion has been primarily through conquest and not through uncoerced conversion.
Many people think these leaders have been paying insufficient attention to how theoretical Islam gets translated into practical Islam. Take, for example, the reactions to the cartoons published in Denmark. The cartoons certainly were in bad taste, and it's understandable that Muslims would be ticked off by them, but there's a difference between being ticked off and advocating retaliatory murder.
At her blog, columnist Michelle Malkin has photographs of Muslim demonstrators in London. The signs they are holding are not the sort you might expect to find in the hands of Hare Krishnas who are upset that their religion has been lampooned:
"Freedom Go to Hell"; "Be Prepared for the Real Holocaust"; "Europe, You Will Pay; Your 9/11 Is on Its Way"; "Behead Those Who Insult Islam"; "Butcher Those Who Mock Islam"; "Exterminate Those Who Slander Islam"; "Annihilate Those Who Insult Islam"; "As Muslims We Unite & Are Prepared to Fight"; "This Is the Beginning of the End for You Disbelievers."
Not exactly consoling stuff. See:
www.michellemalkin.com
WHERE THE LITURGICAL BUCK STOPS
Here we are, more than forty years after the close of Vatican II. Virtually all of the Council fathers and periti are deceased, and even most of the younger generation that put into effect the liturgical changes that followed (but that were not actually ordered by) the Council have gone to their reward. But how little improved the liturgy is from the late 1960s!
The December-January issue of "Adoremus Bulletin" prints comments from laymen who responded to a survey sent out by that publication. Maybe some of the comments remind you of your own parish:
Richmond: "We have not been denied the option of receiving on the tongue but have received much huffing from several extraordinary ministers." [Comment: Receiving on the tongue is the normative or official way; it's receiving in the hand that is the optional way.]
Miami: "The problem with so many of our Masses is not outright abuse but just a general spirit of irreverence and tackiness."
San Antonio: "Name the abuses, we have them. Sand during Lent in holy water fonts. ... During concelebrated Masses with five or six priests plus deacons, extraordinary ministers are used, and priests sit in chairs. ... One of our priests refuses to use the name 'Father' in the Mass prayers; he says 'gracious God.' Another priest shouts 'Jesus has died for us' at the Consecration."
Milwaukee: "I am afraid to report liturgical abuses to the abuser, because in the past when I have done so, my comments have been either rejected outright, or I have been made to feel inferior because I am 'lay' and do not understand what modern theologians are teaching."
Oakland: "Our pastor moved the tabernacle. ... Because we have adoration before the Blessed Sacrament, he calls us 'tabernacle worshipers' and 'cookie worshipers.'"
To be fair, the same issue of "Adoremus Bulletin" quotes people whose parishes are abuse-free zones, and some note that things have been getting better in their dioceses in recent years. Still, it seems remarkable (and therefore worth remarking) that we're almost two generations past Vatican II and still have persistent liturgical abuses.
Twenty years ago, when what was reputed to be a conservative Administration did many things that liberals liked and conservatives didn't, conservative commentators cried, "Let Reagan be Reagan!"--as though these things were going on without the President's knowledge or direction. If only someone were to tell him what his underlings were doing!
It turned out that he knew full well what they were doing and generally supported their actions. So it is in the Church.
"If only my bishop knew!" Well, he does know, and his predecessors knew too. It's hardly credible that everyone except the bishop would know what's going on in his parishes. If there are persistent abuses, they persist because the bishop, for whatever reason, has chosen not to end them.
Harry Truman knew where the buck stopped. It's disconcerting that so many Catholics still don't.
DR. JOHNSON AND A PRESENT-DAY ADMIRER
Early last month I was in Rome, attending a conference hosted by Thomas Fleming, editor of "Chronicles." When I got home, I discovered a nice write-up about him by Taki Theodoracopulos. He describes Fleming as "a former university teacher of classics who specialized in Greek tragedy and the technique of lyric poetry ... a serious although very humorous man who thinks Paris is the French capital, rather than a talentless publicity-seeking Hollywood celebrity with an IQ lower than her age."
Fleming "no longer believes in political parties or movements in the United States because they are unreliable, and their leaders will say or do anything in order to be elected. 'I make friends with individuals rather than groups.'" He "calls Samuel Johnson the greatest conservative writer because 'He was painfully aware of human suffering and inhumanity but firmly committed to social order which, however imperfect, improves the possibility of leading a good life.'"
I enjoyed meeting Fleming and can agree with the remarks about him. And I concur with Fleming's recommendation of Dr. Johnson. If you have not read any of Johnson's works, I urge you to do so, even though he was not a Catholic.
Of course, there's James Boswell's "Life of Johnson." A good, shorter introduction to the good Doctor is "Selected Essays" in the Penguin Classics series. The best biography is "Samuel Johnson" by Walter Jackson Bate.
Of Johnson's books, my favorite might be "Rasselas." It is a moral fairy tale. If you want to see the pugnacious side of Johnson (he was a man with an attitude), try Jack Lynch's "Samuel Johnson's Insults: A Compendium of Snubs, Sneers, Slights and Effronteries from the Eighteenth-Century Master."
You can learn more about "Chronicles" at:
www.chroniclesmagazine.org
p.s., If you have a comment about anything appearing in this E-Letter, please do not hit your Reply button. Instead, go to Catholic Answers' discussion forums at
http://forums.catholic.com
where you may post your comment in the forum dedicated to the E-Letter. You will find a thread devoted to this issue of the E-Letter. Feel free to add your comment in the form of a reply to that thread.
|
Discuss
Index
Prior issue
Next issue
Sign up
