LETTERS
1997 LETTERS
December
November
October
September
July/August
ARTICLES
NEWS
ROAMIN' CATHOLIC
Contents © 1997
by Jim Holman.
All rights reserved.
LETTERS
NOVEMBER 1997
CORRECTION:
In our article "Has God Been Outed?" (October 1997) we stated that the music for the Mass at the Fourth Annual Conference of the National Association of Catholic Diocesan Lesbian and Gay Ministries was "provided by homosexual activist Bob Hurd and his orchestra." While Bob Hurd and his orchestra did indeed perform for the Mass, our designation of him as a homosexual activist was, as far as we know, inaccurate. We apologize for the mistake.
THEY STILL THINK THE MASS IS BORING
Here are my thoughts on the workshop I attended to implement Cardinal Mahony's pastoral letter, "Gather Faithfully Together."
I was uncomfortable with the letter before the workshop. I am a permanent deacon, and I felt that I was not needed liturgically. The word "deacon" is used once, in a quotation from St. Justin Martyr. A deacon is an ordinary minister of the Eucharist; this fact is not mentioned. But the term "minister of communion" is used several times, always directed at lay ministers of the Eucharist. Also, I didn't find any positive suggestions that would improve the solemnity and reverence at Mass. The suggestions offered are ideal at best, some are impossible to realize in two years, others are a re-hashing of what hasn't worked for the past 30 years.
The seminar itself was poorly conducted. Even those present who praised the cardinal's letter admitted that the day was a waste of time, by the way the work sessions were conducted.
The keynote address by Bishop Trautman offered no new suggestion that hasn't been heard over the past thirty years. What upset me was the cheering that went up when he suggested using music that will attract young people to the liturgy. What planet is he from? Music does not put expressions of joy on to the faces of the young people at my parish. They still think that Mass is boring.
He did say one true thing: "the way we celebrate our liturgy is the way we catechize our people." We could modify it to say, "the way we live our faith and pass it on in our families is the way we catechize our people." Go to any CCD class, and see how much our children know about their Catholic Faith.
Bishop Trautman said something to the effect that good liturgies will inspire our people to live good Christian lives. Liturgies poorly done are not at the root of the problem of people living good Christian lives. People are at the root of the problem--people who come from families where Catholic traditions and devotions are not practiced. If reverence and devotion were fostered in the home then most families would not tolerate the things they have to put up with at Mass. We are in the second or third generation of poorly catechized adults who, through no fault of their own, have no Catholic traditions to pass down to their children. Once we catechize at the family level, then we can see how to improve on the liturgy.
There are 130 numbered paragraphs in the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, but "Gather Faithfully Together" quotes only #14. How can we implement "the Spirit-inspired work of Vatican II" on the basis of only one paragraph? How about #36, which begins, "Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites." Or what about #116: "The Church acknowledges Gregorian chant as proper to the Roman liturgy: therefore, other things being equal, it should be given pride of place in liturgical services." To any person attending a Catholic Mass in the L.A. Archdiocese, it would seem that the St. Louis Jesuits, David Haas, and Marty Haugen have pride of place.
Does the reader cringe at these quotes about Latin and Gregorian Chant? If they do, then maybe they do not have the "spirit of Vatican II." One can't call these "pre-Vatican II" notions if they're found in a Vatican II document.
What makes me most uncomfortable with the pastoral letter is its approach to the Eucharist. When using the term "Body of Christ," I cannot tell whether the cardinal means the assembly or the Sacred Species. Are the consecrated bread and wine really the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ as quoted in the footnote from the Council of Trent, or not? The text of the letter makes vague what is crystal clear in the footnote.
The cardinal's goal to incorporate diverse cultures could be reached by emphasizing the culture of the Universal Church to which we all belong. This alone would go a long way to get many different cultures to "witness that in this Church there is finally no longer this people or that people, but one single assembly in Christ Jesus." One obstacle to reaching this goal was at the conference itself. It seemed that with more than half the handouts given out, the facilitators gave the excuse that "we didn't have time" to make them in Spanish. What message does that send to the Hispanic community?
If the cardinal will support "Adoremus," he will find that he indeed will have the "full conscious, and active participation" of all the faithful.
Deacon Dennis Mitchell
EXTREMELY UPSET
Your article "Has God Been Outed?" in the October Mission was extremely disturbing. However, I take exception to one small part. You quoted Carol Clark, St. Andrew's RCIA director, about Courage. I went to our Associate Pastor at St. Andrew's to advise him of the article and quote. I was upset! He told me Carol Clark came to him extremely upset because she had never made such a statement and wanted to know what to do. In light of this fact, you should print a retraction or apology to her.
H.S.
Pasadena
Editor's Note: Our reporter, who was present at the Fourth Annual Conference of the National Association of Catholic Diocesan Lesbian and Gay Ministries, personally heard Carol Clark make the statement ascribed to her in the article.
IS CARDINAL MAHONY EVIL?
Having read "Still Ambiguous" (October Mission), it appears as if Roger Mahony uses religious technique to foster a strange, possibly abortive, liturgical agenda. Comparing his document for articulation to those of popes, I see a mechanistic and shallow spirituality which faintly hints of a stark tyranny which arouses and then manipulates social impulses to force drastic changes.
Is Cardinal Mahony evil? Probably not, but he seems incoherent. The critical question may regard his faith in the Mass. As your series illuminates his interpretation of the nature of the Consecration, it likely remains at this depth where the cardinal will play out his victory or defeat. He seems headed for defeat, if we see him simply as bumbling. But, if we see him as evil, do we not see him vying for leadership in a widespread effort to create an entirely new "denomination" of Christianity, or even a new religion?
I look at Scripture and Tradition and find amazing clarity. These modern works, however, start out vague and bottom out quickly without ever becoming clear, revealing the classic signature of the con-artist, with its pseudo-mystery quite different from genuine spirituality. I find the Word of God, whether in the Bible or in Sacred Tradition, totally powerful, but the words of Cardinal Mahony lack the same fragrance of authority.
Anthropologically, how can this irony be? Is it my failure to understand that undermines my trust in contemporary church doings, or can these men be so mean in spirit that, before our very eyes, they undertake to challenge the Creator and His humble walk among our tiny lives? Why do they have to parade around like harlots taunting us with their impurities, while insisting that we all conform to their weird, unproven theories of human nature? How preposterous of them to tamper with the Eucharist!
John L. Sillasen
Sun City
NOT A CHRISTIAN ATTITUDE
I read with great interest Ann Druffel's comments (See "Letters," October Mission) on "crying babies and foreign hymns." In a society that has such a bitter, and, sometimes, hateful attitude toward young children, I never would expect such attitudes from a Catholic. It is very disturbing to me when I hear a Catholic woman say she appreciates "a quiet church where very small children are either left home while their parents 'take shifts' going to Mass[.] If they must bring [small children], they should sit in the back of the church where they can more easily be taken out if they cry or otherwise disturb worshippers around them." This attitude is anything but Christian. I wonder if Ann Druffel and those like her have the same attitude towards mentally handicapped or elderly people in wheel chairs.
Children are blessings from God, and as a mother of four, I am proud to say that my husband and I bring our children to Mass, and we sit in the front row as a family. When Communion is given, my children reverently kneel in front of the priest for their blessings. My children don't always behave in a saintly manner (like some of the adults), and my nine month old has an occasional cry, but that's okay, because they are children, and that's the way God made them.
Debbie Baird
Quartz Hill
I CAN'T ACCUSE YOU OF JOURNALISM
Although your publication follows a newspaper format, its true form is that of a magazine of commentary. This is apparent from your frequent use of descriptive phrases, such as "quick to add that...," "seemingly without any qualms...," "responds by musing...," which are editorial comments rather than factual news reporting, this in spite of the fact that the writers refer to themselves as reporters in the body of the article. The fact that you are more a magazine of commentary than a newspaper is also apparent from the fact that it is not until page 7 that we come to a section entitled "News." Given all that, I am not going to accuse you of yellow journalism, as some of your readers have done. In fact, I don't think I can accuse you of journalism at all.
While I strongly agree with the need for somebody, somewhere, to defend vigorously the Tridentine form of the Mass, and the use of Latin, especially Gregorian chant, I feel the need to remind you of what you surely already know: this traditional Mass only dates back as far as the 16th century and the celebrations of the Eucharist in the context of a gathering of Christians during a meal dates back to the first centuries of the Christian Church; the agape celebration was only abandoned around the eighth century because of the all night parties that began to follow these feasts. Today's contemporary liturgies are more akin to the agape, without the drunkenness, than they are to the Tridentine Mass and, because of that, could be said to be even more traditional. In view of that, your readership would be better served with more historical facts than sarcastic innuendo. It would be better served by constructive critical comparisons of today's version of liturgy with the liturgy at the time of the Apostles. And it would be better served by reasoned arguments in favor of the preservation of more recent aspects of the liturgy, such as the Tridentine Mass, in order to maintain the universality and variety of the Catholic Church whose very name means "universal."
As far as your obsessive treatment of issues, such as homosexuality, I am forced to consider why in a world of such corporate greed, political hypocrisy, starvation and suffering and persecution you choose to devote so much time to a group of individuals whose greatest offense seems to be one of loving one another in a way you cannot approve. Why don't you leave that judgment call to God who is considerably better qualified to make the final decision and concentrate on reporting relevant news in a factual manner and reserving comment to editorial pages, allowing your reader to easily separate truth from your opinion. The Son of God, Jesus, himself chose to make no comment on the subject. His main emphasis was on doctrines of love and forgiveness and condemnation of hypocrisy and the commercialization of the temple. This compassion is an example you might want to consider following.
To this I would add my late Mother's words: "I just don't know why all the fuss about homosexuals... in my day, we called them bachelors."
William C. Freda
Lytle Creek
TOO NEGATIVE FOR ME
I have found your newspaper over the years both interesting and irritating. I am a "moderate liberal" (if one uses labels). Your newspaper, in my humble and subjective view, is conservative and traditionalist. I don't think it would be useful to list my objections to some (not all) of your featured articles. However, your generally "negative" approach has, for me, reached the point that I respectfully request that you drop me from your mailing list.
Bruce K. Olsen
Venice