August 2004 Archives

I posted a month ago on the Act of Faith, that traditional Catholic prayer.

O my God, I firmly believe that You are one God in three divine Persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; I believe that your divine Son became man and died for our sins, and that He will come to judge the living and the dead. I believe these and all the truths which the Holy Catholic Church teaches, because You revealed them, who can neither deceive nor be deceived.

We use this prayer to remind ourselves that all Church teachings are worthy of belief, and we gain merit through our efforts to conform ourselves to those teachings. Particularly in those teachings pertaining to faith and morals, the Church does not teach error.

I can understand why some see an apparent discrepancy between practicing Natural Family Planning (NFP) and Artificial Birth Control (ABC). I myself have questioned at times the quasi-contracteptive mentality that can appear under NFP, at least hypothetically, so I appreciate the difficulty some have with the teaching.

Pope John Paul II has rightly stressed the importance of not separating the unitive and procreative aspects of marriage. Even though the unitive aspect of marriage may not have been so forcefully taught in the past, that does not mean it is not a genuine outgrowth of the traditional understanding of marriage. In fact, I do agree that it is.

However, the crux of the problem is in the deliberate choice to have conjugal relations during infertile times. I have given this issue some thought in the past; wondering how it could be that the Church promotes NFP, while seemingly leaving Herself vulnerable to the possibility that couples could use it for their own selfish ends - that is, for avoiding pregnancy.

In John Allen's recent column, he lets us in on an informal poll he has taken, regarding what cardinal electors may be most looking for in a papal candidate.

The single most common refrain I hear from many cardinals today, in fact, is that if anything John Paul II has been too much a visionary, too much a man of big dreams and soaring imagination, and not enough a governor. Many believe that the internal management of the Church has suffered on John Paul’s watch, and they hope the next pope will be more attentive to the nuts and bolts of routine administration – clerical discipline, episcopal appointments, coordination across the offices of the Roman Curia. This observation, I stress, is born not of a review of the literature on papal elections or my own spiritual reflections, but interviews with roughly half of the men who will actually cast ballots.

In John Allen's recent column, he delves into the history of the dogma of the Mary's Immaculate Conception. I found it to be an interesting read, raising a number of points of which I was unaware.

Jcecil3 makes an attempt to explain the rampant spread of co-habitation among our modern society. He insists that the motivation to do so is primarily economic, so that if economic barriers could be rectified, this would no longer be a problem. Consider this quote:

I present the case that the cause of rising cohabitation prior to marriage and rising divorce rates are due to economic factors. I argue that these factors have extended the transition to adulthood and place time and money constraints on married couples that make marriage more difficult to sustain in the post-modern information age. I then propose solutions that may save marriage. My solutions do not involve preaching that contracpetion within marriage is a mortal sin, nor do they involve making gay marriage illegal. My solutions would encourage people to marry younger, have more children, and avoid divorce.

So, jcecil3 must think very little of faithful Christians, such that the only way they would be willing to do the right thing is if there is something tangible in it for them. Frankly, he just goes ahead and proves the point that those who choose to live together before marriage are willing to comprise their morals for the sake pleasure and convenience. Consider my reply on his blog.

Dr. James Hitchcock is a professor of history at St. Louis University, as well as a regular columnist for the Arlington Catholic Herald. In this excellent recent column, Dr. Hitchcock highlights the following blatant errors:

Over the centuries the Church used naked force to impose its doctrines on an unsuspecting public. Even when Protestants repudiated Catholic authority, they did not go far enough, not recognizing that the New Testament itself is the ultimate source of error about Jesus.

But modern scholarship has at last discovered the truth. The Jesus Seminar has found that most of the sayings attributed to Jesus in the Gospels are spurious, while Dan Brown’s book The Da Vinci Code, while allegedly a work of fiction, raises many "interesting questions" which have been suppressed for centuries.

Christianity, except insofar as it repudiates its historic self, is a negative force in society, especially in its repressive teachings about
sexuality, which prevent people from finding their true selves. Christianity is dangerous especially because of its concept of orthodoxy. There is no such thing as ultimate truth, and those who think otherwise are fanatics who threaten a free society, as in the pro-life movement. The above is a view of religion which any half-attentive person is likely to imbibe from even cursory attention to the way religion is now discussed among the "enlightened" classes. The media do not exactly endorse this view of religion, but they present it as "interesting" and treat its proponents with much deference.

Though not all would be so radical in their denial of Christian truths, I believe many modern day Catholics are still infected with a cafeteria-style belief system. They have not understood that the body of Church teaching is an organic whole, where rejection of a part is akin to rejection of a part of Christ himself.

Consider these verses, "For this was I born, and for this came I into the world; that I should give testimony to the truth. Every one that is of the truth, heareth my voice." (John 18:37) and "He that heareth you, heareth me..." (Luke 10:16) Clearly, not everyone, even within the Church, would agree that upholding these passages means believing everything the Church teaches. However, we do know that one day Christ himself will clarify the matter fully.

In this article by Arlene Oost-Zinner, we read of her experience at a diocesan-sponsored workshop on liturgical music, out in rural Alabama. Her experience does not sound surprising, given the predominant climate in liturgical music.

[Via Sacred Music]

In the June 2004 issue of Crisis Magazine, we read this article that probes the question "Was Vatican II Highjacked?" Here's how it kicks off:

Most Catholics in 1959 probably didn’t even know what an ecumenical council was. And yet, here it was. Pope John XXIII announced that the goals of the Second Vatican Council would be "the renewal of the spirit of the Gospel in the hearts of people everywhere and the adjustment of Christian discipline to modern-day living"—a proclamation that was on the face of it ambiguous. How was authentic renewal to be achieved? How should essential discipline be adjusted to modern culture?

The article explores the liberal-conservative conflict of the Council sessions, as well as the confusion that followed the Conciliar decrees. A must read for anyone who is interested in true renewal.

In this article, we hear much of the same old story, that general interest in the use of the organ for sacred music is declining. But I have instead chosen to focus on the glimmers of hope that appear at the end of the article:

Despite the declining numbers, authorities said there are reasons to be optimistic that the trend will reverse. Programs to introduce children to the organ, such as the [American Guild of Organists'] week-long Pipe Organ Encounters, were filled to capacity in every city where they were offered in recent years, said James Thomashower, the guild's executive director.

And while some college organ programs are closing, others are starting. Renowned organist Gerre Hancock, who directed the organ program at St. Thomas Episcopal Church in New York City until he retired recently, and his wife, Judith, also a respected organist, plan to start a master's degree program in organ at the University of Texas at Austin.

Two seminaries on the campus of Northwestern University are working to develop master's programs in sacred music, said Christine Marshall Kraemer, who was a lecturer in Northwestern's now-defunct organ program.

"The organ is a fascinating instrument, an incredible machine," Kraemer said. "It seems like the organ has a connection with the church that cannot be denied and that must be preserved."

[Via Dappled Things]

I have yet to finish reading Mulieris Dignitatem, but I have read the shorter recent CDF document on the Collaboration of Men and Women, which indirectly refers to the issue of "mutual subjection", as has been discussed in a recent post. The way I am reading it, the phrase "mutual subjection" in the former document seems to be used in the same context as "collaboration" in the latter. In fact, a case could probably be made that the expressions are interchangeable. Rome seems to have made a decision, more or less explicit, that since the phrase "mutual subjection" has a clear hierarchical implication, potentially conflicting at that, they have rather substituted the word "collaboration", which has a greater chance of being understood in the manner intended.

So, taking the word "collaboration" and projecting it backward onto Mulieris Dignitatem is a useful exercise. In fact, that document, as well as the comments others have made, become abundantly clearer, when understood in this way. When trying to force a new meaning onto an existing word, there is bound to be misunderstanding, as with the phrase "mutual subjection". As Scripture and many other sources make clear, to be "subject to" someone has an objectively hierarchical implication. No matter how frequently or forcefully it is repeated, it is simply incomprehensible how two people could be subject to each other in all things. It makes a mockery of the word "subjection", in the way it is normally understood.