Cosmos-Liturgy-Sex

Well, here’s a disturbing story. A bureaucrat in the Diocese of Trenton, New Jersey, Rev. Ronald J. Cioffi, has recently summarized for a group of fellow bureaucrats in his diocese the USCCB’s document which presumes to provide voting guidelines for Catholic citizens: “Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship.”

As one might expect from a diocesan apparatchik, Rev. Cioffi is at pains — at least as the article has it — to emphasize that Catholics are not single-issue voters. The abortion issue, in other words, cannot be the sole determining factor directing our votes.

There is no doubt that one must grant him the fact. Yet, in making the point, he espouses the usual, hackneyed, illegitimate moral equivalencies that ruin his case: the war in Iraq, economic issues, racism, etc. — all of these issues, he says, are determining factors in how we should vote in the upcoming election, and he clearly implies that the Republicans are wrong on all of them. This opinion, holding no theological authority, must be rejected.

Cioffi, at least as his views are presented in the article, fails to mention that Republican economic policies cannot be said to be intrinsically evil. In fact, I would argue that a better case can be made for intrinsic evil in the Democrat Party’s economic policies, which are driven by the intention to destroy free association and pre-political communities.  The pre-political institutions that are targeted above all by the Democrats? The family and the Church. The entire party platform of the Democrats, economic and social, is oriented toward the ruination of these. They think that everything must be nationalized. They want nothing to stand in the way of the state’s control of the individual. Thus, they hold implicitly (though they can never come out and say it in mixed company) that the family and the Church must be destroyed.

Moreover, it is debatable as to whether the war in Iraq is intrinsically evil; certainly, the war does not compare in intrinsic moral gravity to the mass slaughter of innocent children in the womb.

And I will not even deign to comment on the article’s ridiculous insinuation that Republicans are racists. 

Now, I must admit (speaking for myself and not for anyone else on this blog), that I have no interest in reading anything that the USCCB puts together. As a body, the Conference has no theological authority, and, on top of that, their documents strike me as being almost uniformly without theological substance. None of their pronouncements are binding on one’s Catholic conscience, and to that we must be thankful. After all, the statements of the Conference often leave one with the distinct impression that it is run by socialistic bureaucrats and not by the shepherds of the Church. Thanks be to God that it is the individual bishop, in communion with the See of Peter, who has theological authority and not episcopal conferences.

But, given all of that, I want to raise a question: is the document that Coffi expounds really as incompetently articulated as this functionary of the Diocese of Trenton, Rev. Cioffi (and his journalistic compadre), makes it seem?

Here’s a disturbing blog post from an alternative media type operating out of Chicago.

Apparently, the Diocese of Rockford has disassociated itself from Mundelein, due to homosexual activity among the seminarians. I had hoped that Mundelein had been turned around, is that not the case? Does anybody have an on-the-scene report?

For those of you who are media types here is the media kit for the 80 year celebration this fall. For all who are not, go take a look any way. They provide a pretty well done video intro. For those who know who to look for, see if you can find me in the video…

Oh, by the way.  If you have a great quote from John Cardinal Henry Newman that you think every one passing through SJCNC should read, pass it along (think undergrads first, theology grad students, faculty, staff, all Catholic and non).  Please provide the bibliographic reference with it.  Thanks!

A couple of weeks ago, Sandro Magister published an article about a rift that has arisen between the liberation theologian, Leonardo Boff and his brother, Clodovis, also a liberation theologian.  Liberation theology, for those who do not know, began in Latin America in the 1960s but took off in a very rebellious direction in the wake of the Second Vatican Council.  Their rebellion perhaps was encouraged by the lack of consequences associated with the open rebellion of the many theologians who rejected Humanae vitae.

Gustavo Gutiérrez’s book, Liberation Theology, came out at the end of 1971 and formed the seedbed for liberation theologians.  In general, Liberation theology came out of a reaction against a culture prevalent in many countries in Latin America in which the Church hierarchy was often seen as supporting governmental policies and wealthy land owners at the expense of the largely poor population. It had founded itself on Marxist philosophy in which there was assumed to be an inevitable class conflict between the oppressive capitalists (the bourgeoisie) and the working class (the proletariat).  This was probably a result of the influence of socialist revolutions that had begun to occur in many Latin American countries beginning in 1950s.  Liberation theology often sought to refashion the gospel message into one of temporal liberation of the masses from the oppression of the bourgeoisie.  In all too many cases it attenuated or outright rejected the teaching that Christ liberated humanity from the oppression of sin and death.

In 1984 the Holy See, through the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF), came out with an instruction condemning certain aspects of liberation theology. It rejected its foundation on Marxists philosophy that saw class warfare as inevitable, and especially its advocacy of armed struggle against perceived oppressors. It condemned its anti-hierarchical orientation which placed the Church’s hierarchy in the role of oppressor. It warned against pitting so-called “orthopraxy” (right behavior/practice) against “orthodoxy” (right belief) as justification for rejecting authoritative Church teaching and making the former the only criterion for discerning theological truth. It rejected the overturning of the Church’s teaching that Jesus came to establish His heavenly kingdom with the proposition that He came to inaugurate, by His example, class warfare which would bring about a solely secularized Kingdom of God on earth.

While some liberation theologians actually, in public at least, took heed of some of these cautions, Leonardo and his brother, Clodovis, did not. Leonardo, a Franciscan, lost his teaching faculties as a Catholic theologian in 1985. He eventually abandoned his religious vows, left the Franciscan order and married.

Clodovis remained committed to his brother’s liberationist views for many years. While Clodovis was never disciplined by Rome, he was denied his teaching faculties by his order, the Servants of Mary. However, he never left his order. Recently, Clodovis has come to accept the major errors of liberation theology. Magister provides an English translation from the Portuguese of some of the central points that Clodovis, now a member of Communion and Liberation, makes about the problems with liberation theology:

“Nothing but dismal effects can follow from this error of principle. [...] When the poor acquire the status of an epistemological ‘primum’, what happens to the faith and its doctrine on the theological and pastoral level? [...] The inevitable result is the politicization of the faith, its reduction to an instrument for social liberation.”

The consequences are also grave for the life of the Church:

“The ‘pastoral action of liberation’ becomes one of the many branches of the ‘popular movement’. The Church becomes like an NGO, and so also loses substance physically: it loses workers, militants, and faithful. Those ‘on the outside’ feel little attraction for a ‘Church of liberation’, because the militants already have NGO’s, while for religious experience they need much more than simple social liberation. Moreover, because of the failure to perceive the social extent and relevance of the current spiritual malaise, liberation theology shows itself to be culturally myopic and historically anachronistic, or alienated from its time.”

In the second part of the essay, the author shows how liberation theology can “save itself” through its positive fruits only by returning to its original foundation. Which is found in the final document of the conference in Aparecida.

This document – he writes – is a “clear demonstration” of how a correct connection can be made between faith and liberating action. Unlike liberation theology, which “begins with the poor and arrives at Christ,” Aparecida “begins with Christ and arrives at the poor,” clearly establishing that “the Christ-principle always includes the poor, but the poor-principle does not necessarily include Christ. [...] The original source of theology is nothing other than faith in Christ.”

Clodovis does not reject the idea of a liberation theology but he now recognizes that it must be grounded in the truth of the gospel message–it must be Christocentric. Leonardo’s response to his brother’s return to Mother Church? Magister writes:

Leonardo Boff concedes that his brother’s intention is not that of rejecting liberation theology entirely, but of “restoring it to its original foundations, because it can be saved only in this way.”

But he adds:

“This is an intention that to me is the equivalent of saying: My brother, I stab you in the heart, but relax, it’s for your own good.”

It is interesting that Leonardo sees this as a betrayal by his brother. He obviously places a high premium on fidelity and loyalty. However, his disloyalty to the truth of the faith and his embrace of his destructive personal opinions as the “truth” that everyone else must accept has led too many people astray. Perhaps the wayward Boff will one day see the irony in his own words about his brother: Leonardo Boff’s infidelity to his religious vows has placed his hands on the spear that pierced his Master’s side.

Given the earlier discussion, I thought that I would try to clarify somewhat the position of the “Feingoldian” Thomists vis-à-vis Henri de Lubac. I follow in this regard a presentation by Fr. Guy Mansini, a professor of systematic theology at Saint Meinrad Seminary. It is from an article of his for which I do not have the bibliographical information. Nevertheless, I am going to present some aspects of the article, in the hopes that, lacking the bibliographical reference, I do not get into trouble (Update: thanks to reader W., here is the reference: Guy Mansini, “Henri de Lubac, the Natural Desire to See God, and Pure Nature,” 83 no. 1 Gregorianum [2002]: 89-109).

Mansini, in the article in question, lists five theses of de Lubac on the question of the relation of nature and grace:

Thesis One: Attention to the order of pure nature, which began in the 16th century, has had a malign impact on the Church both speculatively and practically. This is so because of the way that the doctrine of pure nature has developed historically. Either a) nature was conceived of in such a way that it needed grace (as with the theologian Baius) or b) it was supernaturalized. This latter way of thinking about pure nature postulated a natural intuition of God or a natural friendship with God; it led to “extrinsicist” accounts of grace, for which it is thought that human nature can have perfect contentment in its own order.

Thesis Two: God has never ordained for man anything more than a supernatural end. There is an intrinsic unity to the economy of salvation, and modern theology was not always sufficiently attentive to this fact.

Thesis Three: Human nature is what it is because it is ordered to a supernatural end, and would not be what it is if it were otherwise ordered.

Thesis Four: The fourth thesis that Mansini presents is complex. It is a thesis in three parts. First, the natural desire to see God must be foremost in our attention in speculative theology, otherwise we do not recognize the unity of the economy of salvation, and we get mixed up on the relationship between philosophical anthropology and theological anthropology, between knowledge and faith, and between philosophy and theology. Second, the natural desire to see God is both sign and effect of our being ordered to possession of beatific vision. Third, because the human “natural desire to see God” is inherently of the supernatural order, it must be understood to be a necessary and absolute ordination and not conditioned – yet, we must not deny that grace is truly gratuitous.

Thesis 5: There follows from theses 1-3 a prohibition: it is useless to consider in the speculative order the condition of our nature aside from its supernatural ordination.

Now, this is all a bit dense, but it is nevertheless a pithy summary of de Lubac’s position. What do the Thomists whom Mansini represents disagree with in these theses? It may surprise some to learn that they do, in fact, agree with theses 1-3. The fourth, multipart thesis is the root of their disagreement. They hold that it articulates an understanding of the expression “natural desire to see God” that is contrary to Thomas’s understanding of this desire. The natural desire to see God would still exist, they claim, even if we had been created outside of the supernatural order. The desire is really natural and is therefore wrongly understood to be absolute, necessary, unconditional, supernatural, etc. Thus, they argue, one must be able to consider the reality of “pure nature,” a nature which, contrary to fact, would have been created outside of the order of the supernatural.

And this, they claim, is not merely a pointless exercise in contra-factual hypotheses. To consider the reality of “pure nature” has important religious significance, even though, historically, some theologians may have indeed fallen into “extrinsicism” in their considerations of it. Why is it religiously valuable to consider pure nature? Mansini himself argues that it enables us to appreciate more greatly the value of God’s elevating grace. Without our supernatural ordination to beatific vision, we would still have a desire to see God, but without the efficacious power to fulfill that desire. We would be in a condition that is aptly described as an “endless end.” We would be in a state where our desire could never be met. The condition that Mansini describes, following Thomas, is akin to that of pagan humanity: for whom it was not even clear that the human soul was immortal, or that the world was created.

Moreover, according to Mansini, there is greater biblical warrant for the position that recognizes the possibility for pure nature than for de Lubac’s: it corresponds to the reality of divine election. Even though the economy of salvation is a unity, still, God calls out a special people to mediate His presence to the world and to form His Church: in absolutizing or supernaturalizing the desire to see God, de Lubac’s position falls short of being able to account for the reality of divine election.

I shall leave it at that.

I apologize if my earlier post and comments confused the issues at hand.

A pro-life website, Fightingirishthomas.com, has recently announced a new policy: they will no longer link to blog posts written by anonymous authors. I haven’t quite understood their rationale. But, here’s what they say:

Recently, Fighting Irish Thomas and its co-site, Cathlete.net, announced it would no longer be linking to anonymous posts. True, many of these blogs we formerly linked to were very entertaining, and others were thoroughly orthodox. Also, all of these authors seemed to have very good reasons for remaining anonymous. But in the end (or shall we say, the end-times?), none of these reasons were good enough.

First, we heard the ever-popular excuse, “I want to give God all the glory, so that’s why I don’t use my name.” Unfortunately, any bona fide Right-to-Lifer could tell you that any accolades received from the righteous are far out-weighed by the ridicule a holy soul accumulates from the Left, so “humbleness” and “anonymous-ness” can no longer be synonymous. Similarly, the “but I want my post to stand on it’s own!” claim might carry some clout if one was taking a college writing class and the professor was concerned mainly with style, but something far more important than style is at stake here. In reality, the last reason, “But I might lose my job!” (or friends, or place in society) is by far the most ominous—and often encompasses the other two. In fact the last woman we allowed to anonymously link to Cathlete.net openly admitted not only was she afraid she would lose her high-paying job if she wrote her pro-life blog under her real name, but “would probably have to move out of state and would no longer be able to take care of her ailing mother.

While we can certainly respect the gravity of such a difficult decision, we believe that, with the distinct possibility of an Obama-nation just months away, the time for anonymity among the forces of Our Blessed Mother has passed. If it is true, as Father Frank Pavone stated, that we will never overturn Roe v. Wade unless we are successful in putting faces on those formerly anonymously aborted bodies, we will also never defeat the Culture of Death if we remain nameless in our opposition. Once again, the Way of the Cross awaits, and the Lord is again asking if we are ready to risk the consequences and follow, or will we remain in the shadows with Peter, afraid to “link” our name with that of Christ. For if we do not come forth before November, I’m afraid the choice, Death (in the name of Democracy), will instead be made for us.

Again, I do not understand the rationale in this. Fr. Pavone suggests what he does about aborted babies because he recognizes the need to humanize those who are culturally dehumanized. I do not think that the same logic applies in regard to the pro-life movement vis-à-vis the blog-o-sphere.

Not that you care, but I have, personally, a simple reason for choosing to post anonymously: because the web is a diversion for me, pure and simple. It is a diversion because it is not a proper format for in-depth discussion. It is thus not my life, and it is not worth ruining my life over. It is not worth ruining my career over. Who in their right mind would think that the maintenance of an out-in-the-open weblog is more important than a person’s career?

Anonymous web posting is certainly no moral failure. It is not intrinsically evil. By the same token, web posts written by authors whose identity is known are not going to keep us safe from the communist hordes unleashed in an Obama-nation. That will require real, honest-to-goodness resistance in the real world. Someone in the cyber world might very well tell us when and where to show up. But it is in the real world where the battle will be fought. So, I say: keep your real life in tact; keep your cyber life private, if you deem it necessary.

As a follow up to my last post, I want to point out a relatively recent edition of Nova et Vetera, (5:1), which contains a series of articles by some Thomists who argue against what they call Henri de Lubac’s “supernaturalizing” of human nature. They follow Lawrence Feingold’s dissertation, which I mentioned in my last post. The editors at Nova et Vetera were motivated to compile these articles by a desire to respond critically to John Milbank’s The Suspended Middle, which dismisses Feingold’s dissertation. In fact, Milbank is so dismissive of Feingold that he gets his name wrong — he refers to Feingold as “Feinberg.” This speaks ill, in my opinion, of Milbank’s credibility as a scholar, but that is a story for another day. I am merely providing this link as a public service to aspiring Catholic theologians. Do go check out the abstracts for the articles, which give an intriguing summary for each article. But, you will have to order the actual journal to read the whole of each article, unless they have the articles on-line in a special, secret file that I don’t know about, and that you can hack into. I heard something about The Thomist, in this regard. At any rate, here’s the link.

I found this excellent quotation in Frederick Copleston’s A History of Philosophy, volume 2, and thought that I would share it with the rest of the class:

The Thomist distinction between the sciences of dogmatic theology and philosophy, with the accompanying distinction of the modes of procedure to be employed in the two sciences, no doubt evolved inevitably out of the earlier attitude, though, quite apart from that consideration, it obviously enjoys this very great advantage that it corresponds to an actual and real distinction between revelation and the ‘unaided’ reason, between the supernatural and natural spheres. It is at once a safeguard of the doctrine of the supernatural and also of the powers of man in the natural order. Yet the Augustinian attitude on the other hand enjoys this advantage, that it contemplates always man as he is, man in the concrete, for de facto, man has only one final end, a supernatural end, and, as far as actual existence is concerned, there is but man fallen and redeemed: there never has been, is not, and never will be a purely ‘natural man’ without a supernatural vocation and end. If Thomism, without of course neglecting the fact that man in the concrete has but a supernatural end, places emphasis on the distinction between the supernatural and the natural, between faith and reason, Augustinianism, without in the least neglecting the gratuitous character of supernatural faith and grace, always envisages man in the concrete and is primarily interested in his actual relation to God.

…The rigid type of Thomist would, I suppose, maintain that Augustine’s philosophy contains nothing of value which was not much better said by St. Thomas, more clearly delineated and defined; but the fact remains that the Augustinian tradition is not dead even to-day, and it may be that the very incompleteness and lack of systematization in Augustine’s thought, its very ‘suggestiveness’, is a positive help toward the longevity of his tradition, for the ‘Augustinian’ is not faced by a complete system to be accepted, rejected or mutilated: he is faced by an approach, an inspiration, certain basic ideas which are capable of considerable development, so that he can remain perfectly faithful to the Augustinian spirit even though he departs from what the historic Augustine actually said. (p. 49-50)

I found this quotation to be interesting and illuminating for two reasons. First, Copleston sums up in two short paragraphs the issue that was at the heart of Catholic theological debate in the middle of the twentieth century: can man have a natural end, or completion, outside of supernatural grace? Most Thomists said yes, at least speculatively. Man has, they said, no exigency, by nature, for the supernatural. He has, by his own nature, a natural happiness, attainable by the exercise of the natural virtues. Philosophy deals with natural man. Theology deals with man in the order of grace. Theologians influenced by Augustine, such as Henri de Lubac, argued, contrary to this standard Thomist position, that man has only one final completion of his nature, and it is supernatural. There is no such thing as “natural man” outside of the order of grace, and it is a diversion with malevolent consequences to assert the speculative possibility of such a “natural man.” De Lubac argued that, in fact, Augustine’s position on this matter was shared by Thomas himself; the Thomists got Thomas wrong, in other words. Many people have taken de Lubac’s reading of Thomas to be correct – it is the reading of Thomas that is generally shared by theologians in the Communio circles (Communio is, of course, the international journal for which Joseph Ratzinger was a founder).

De Lubac’s reading of Thomas has met a stiff challenge in recent years. A dissertation in Rome by Lawrence Feingold has argued rather convincingly that de Lubac misread Thomas, and many Thomists (such as Romanus Cessario) have argued in support of Feingold’s thesis. I suspect that Feingold is right. But that does not mean that de Lubac’s oeuvre is thereby invalidated, as some would conclude. It means, simply, in my opinion, that de Lubac is firmly in the Augustinian tradition, and probably not a Thomist.

The second thing that I found interesting about Copleston’s quotation was that some of it reads as if it could have been penned by Professor Ratzinger himself. Ratzinger disliked Thomism, at least as it was taught to him, because he thought that it was too rigidly systematic, abstract, and overly speculative. Thomists, in his opinion, did not always deal with “man in the concrete,” whose happiness can come only when, by the grace of God, he attains to beatific vision. Ratzinger, in consequence, has a different understanding of the nature of philosophy than many Thomists. For him, philosophy shows us how to live a good life so that we might die a good death. He has pointed out on more than one occasion that in antiquity it was the task of the philosopher to show us the way to eternal life. None of the philosophers of old could do this, until the Son of Man took on human flesh. This is why, according to Ratzinger, Christ was rightly understood by many in the early Church to be the True Philosopher: Christ showed us how to give perfect obedience to the Father, even unto death.

Philosophy, in this way of understanding it, is not first of all about rational arguments, or about establishing a clarification of abstract concepts. It is first of all about how to live according to the teachings of the Master, Christ Himself, and about how to follow Him, which can be done only by the infusion in the soul of divine grace by the power of the Holy Spirit. Philosophy and theology, then, in this understanding, cannot be as neatly separated as many in the Thomist tradition have thought. In thinking about the relationship of philosophy and theology in this way, Ratzinger shows his Augustinian influence.

Many Thomists, on account of Augustine’s blurring of the lines between philosophy and theology, have taken Augustine to be a vague and metaphorical thinker. But Copleston, himself a Thomist, explains that if the true meaning of Augustine’s way of doing theology is understood, which he shared with all of the great Church Fathers, then their criticism is invalidated:

It is not that Augustine failed to recognize, still less that he denied, the intellect’s power of attaining truth without revelation; it is rather that he regarded the Christian wisdom as one whole, that he tried to penetrate by his understanding the Christian faith and to see the world and human life in the light of Christian wisdom. He knew quite well that rational arguments can be adduced for God’s existence, for example, but it was not so much mere intellectual assent to God’s existence that interested him as the real assent, the positive adhesion of the will to God, and he knew that in the concrete such an adhesion to God requires divine grace. In short, Augustine did not play two parts, the part of the theologian and part of the philosopher who considers the ‘natural man’; he thought rather of man as he is in the concrete, fallen and redeemed mankind, man who is able indeed to attain truth but who is constantly solicited by God’s grace and who requires grace in order to appropriate the truth that saves. (p. 48)

A couple of weeks ago the Anglican Use Society met at the first Anglican Use Rite “personal parish” established in the United States, Our Lady of the Atonement, in San Antonio, Texas (Shelray’s home parish by the way). Fr. Christopher Phillips, one of the first ordained under the Pastoral Provision, has a plethora of details about and pictures from the conference on his blog. For those who might be interested, the Anglican Use Society has posted the texts from the conference talks on their website.

In light of the turmoil in the Anglican communion right now, the Society’s annual conference and especially Archbishop Myer’s opening talk has garnered much attention. Especially in the U.K. where Damien Thompson’s article suggests that Rome is now taking advantage of the internal turmoil, contrary to what he misinterprets B16 to have said. Others news agencies have picked this up as well (Catholic Online, CNA, CathNews). The latter are much more balanced about the implications. In sum, nothing has changed. The Church still encourages unity in the truth of the Catholic Church and seeks to accommodate in fraternal charity all Christians who wish to reconcile with the Barque of Peter.

For those who might be interested in learning more about the Pastoral Provision click here. If you are interested in looking at the order of the Mass according to the Anglican Use Rite, here it is. Perhaps you might be interested in attending an Anglican Use Rite Mass, here is a list of the current personal parishes.

Dappled Things announces:

Our feature for this issue is Dappled Things President Bernardo Aparicio García’s “A Man of Culture: Reflections on the Papal Visit”, a eloquent and timely reflection on Pope Benedict XVI’s April visit to the United States. What did the Pope actually say? What did his visit mean for American Catholics? What did his visit mean for the world today? Finally, there is this burning question: did Benedict XVI really endorse Dappled Things? Here’s a taste of Mr. Aparicio’s analysis of the media response to the visit:

How is it, they wonder, that this strict disciplinarian-this former Panzerkardinal-now seems more interested in talking about love and hope-as he has at length in his two first encyclicals-than in hunting down heretics, sinners, and unbelievers? Has he gone soft? Is it a public relations move? So far the media refuse to imagine that the caricature of the pope they themselves created upon his election may have been mistaken in the first place.

The final installment of Eleanor Donlon’s “Magdalen Montague” is here at last! In Part V: The Triumph of Magdalen Montague, you will read the conclusion of this complex story of redemption, spanning forty years of correspondence. Learn the fates of the loquacious letter-writer “J”, his virulently anti-religious recipient “R”, the silently holy Domokos Juhász, and the long-absent Magdalen. As fitting a collection of letters, a belated Prologue and corresponding Epilogue now appear-but only the former can be found online. Fear not! Instructions for obtaining a copy of the printed issue are included below.

The exquisite workmanship and extraordinary imagination of author Grace Andreacchi are resoundingly showcased in “Lawrence: A Mystery Play”. Ms. Andreacchi unites the traditions of the Medieval mystery play, the beautiful form and style of classical drama (particularly in her use of the chorus), and the story of this beloved saint. Listen to this chilling exchange:

EMPEROR
And is this Jesus not a dead Jew?

LAWRENCE
He is the living Christ
The living Bread come down from heaven,
And whoever eats of this Bread
shall live forever.

EMPEROR
Will you live forever, young Lawrence?
I think you may die tonight.

Other important features include a chilling monologue and poignant expression of human suffering, a vivid and unflinching poetic exploration of modern dreams of progress, the adventures of a half-pint cowboy hero, a thought-provoking essay on love, sex, and our “second selves”, two meditations upon the Providential benevolence and beauty of the sacrament of marriage, and a striking array of black and white photography, principal amongst them Patrick Anderson’s image of the concrete Angel, terrible in its beauty (now gracing the cover of the print issue), as well as many, many more excellent fiction pieces, essays, poems, book reviews, and works of art. I hope you will enjoy this powerful new issue!

As noted above, the final chapter of “Magdalen Montague” will not be available online while the author seeks a publisher for the series in book format (discerning publishers, take note!), so if you are aching to finish the series, and have, in the blind innocence of prosaic distractions, allowed your subscription to lapse-fear not! Today you can purchase a retroactive subscription or a single copy of this issue (at the astonishing rate of $8!). You will find our mailing address in our subscriptions website. Make sure you mention the vital necessity of finishing the Montague series, and let us know that you want to begin your subscription with the SS. Peter & Paul 2008 edition. And send your cheque today (payable to Dappled Things Magazine)-supplies are limited and demand is high!

Wishing you many blessings in these waning summer months,

The Editors

The New Liturgical Movement has the goods on an International Liturgical Conference of great significance. The conference was held last weekend in Fota (which is in County Cork, the ole Delaney homestead), Ireland . . . I like it already . . . and had some heavy hitters in attendance. Some of these include: Fr. Uwe Michael Lang (a former student of B16’s) and Dr. Alcuin Reid. Also I would have to mention, the editor of Antiphon, a journal for liturgical renewal, Fr. Neil Roy.

Here is the entire press release and an additional link all purloined from Shawn Tribe’s post at NLM:

_________________________________________________________________

INTERNATIONAL LITURGICAL CONFERENCE
FOTA, CO. CORK, 12th July 2008-07-14
PRESS RELEASE

Last Saturday, a well-attended, International Liturgical Conference was held in the Sheraton Hotel Fota, Co. Cork, devoted to the topic: “Benedict XVI and the Sacred Liturgy”. It was the second such conference. The first was held in Columbus, Ohio last September. The third will be held in Budapest next August. These conferences explore the unexpected phenomenon of what is being called the “Benedictine reform” of the Liturgy – sometimes called the reform of the reform. The starting point for all the papers was the frank recognition that to date the reform of the Sacred Liturgy (i.e. the way we celebrate the sacraments, in partiuclar the Mass) ordered by the Second Vatican Council has been, to put it mildly, a mess. It is in urgent need of correction, a standpoint, it is claimed, which is shared by the Holy Father.

The Conference was chaired by Dr D. Vincent Twomey, SVD, Professor Emeritus of Moral Theology, Maynooth, a former doctoral student of the then Joseph Ratzinger. In his introductory comments, Fr Twomey singled out Ratzinger’s theology of creation to highlight two central concerns to be found in the Pope’s extensive writings on liturgy, namely (1) the cosmic dimension of the liturgy and (2) the roots of the ritual of the Mass not only in the Word-liturgy of the Synagogue but also in the Temple worship now transformed in Christ. In the bungled reform of the liturgy after the Council, he claimed, both – the cosmic dimension of the liturgy as well as its roots in the Temple worship – were, for various reasons, practically ignored. The result is a truncated liturgy. Fr Twomey also pointed out that in Ratzinger’s sacramental theology and in his theology of the world religions, we find a profound appreciation of the fact that the ultimate roots of Christian sacred liturgy are to be found in the cultic rituals of humanity which reach back to the dawn of time. All of this has been ignored by the so-called liturgical experts who, for the first time in the history of the Church – indeed in the history of religions – began to fabricate the liturgy according to abstract principles of questionable theological provenance.

(From Left to Right; Fr. Neil Roy, Helen Hull Hitchcock, Professor D. Vincent Twomey and Fr. Uwe Michael Lang)

These themes were taken up by the impressive paper of international speakers.
The way we now speak only of “the liturgy” and no longer of “the Sacred Liturgy” well illustrates one of the main reasons why the reformed liturgy up to now has, on the whole, been a catastrophe: it increasingly lacks any reference to the Sacred or to Transcendence. James Hitchcock, Professor of History at St Louis University, USA, described the way the reform went wrong, primarily because of the way the secular assumptions of modernity became the determining factors in shaping the liturgy. Thus, for example, the object of the new type of secularized liturgy, it would seem, is to help people relax. Sacred space gives way to domesticated space, where people are supposed to feel “at home”. The community ends up celebrating itself. The reformers, unfortunately, ignored the findings of anthropologists such as Mary Douglas, who recovered for us moderns the nature and centrality of symbol and ritual –and with ritual, the centrality of tradition in forming community, a community that reaches beyond the here-and-now to God, the angels and the saints in glory. In a word, the reformers fell prey to the spirit of the age.

The internationally renowned English theologian and author, Dr Alcuin Read, described in some detail the major steps in the reform since the council. The original vision of the Council Fathers got lost in the hands of the so-called “liturgical experts”, who, for the first time in the history of the Church began to fabricate liturgy in the abstract, as it were, instead of letting it organically develop. Central to the concern of the “liturgist” was the hermeneutics of discontinuity, as though all that had happened over the previous centuries had been a mistake and so something new had to be produced. Dr Read also outlined what he described as the four pillars of the “Benedictine Reform”, namely the Pope’s personal liturgical example, his insistence on historical and intellectual honesty with regard to the liturgical life of the Church in recent decades, his insistence on the correct celebration of the liturgy according to the liturgical books, and his desire for fidelity to received liturgical tradition. Central to this is the affirmation of the hermeneutics of continuity, expressed, for example, in the general permission to allow the pre-Vatican II rite (the so-called Tridentine Rite) to be celebrated and calling it the extraordinary rite.

The validity of the ordinary rite – the Novus Ordo of Pope Paul VI – was stressed in the lively paper delivered by Mrs Hitchcock on the main features of the Benedictine Reform. Two extremes are to be avoided: rejecting the validity of either the old rite or the new. Both are expressions of the one, ancient liturgical tradition of the Latin Western Tradition. It is hoped that both will in time influence each other, since the older rite is itself in need of further development, e.g. the use of the vernacular in the readings, as already foreseen by the Pope’s decree authorizing the use of the older rite. But the main attention must be given to the celebration of the new or ordinary rite and the need to recover the cosmic dimension of the sacred liturgy, which Pope Benedict XVI has stressed over and over again.

A fascinating paper by the German theologian, Manfred Hauke, Professor of Dogmatic Theology at Lugano, Switzerland, introduced the participants to the life and work of the little-known liturgist, Klaus Gamber of Regensburg. Ratzinger once described him as the only scholar who truly represents the central tradition of the Church in matters liturgical. Professor Hauke described Gamber as the father of a new beginning in liturgical reform.

The reform of the rite at present currently in use must, for example, pay more attention to the sacred nature of the liturgy. In his learned paper, Dr Uwe Michael Lang, a German Oratorian priest and renowned patristic scholar now working the the Vatican Congregation for Worship and the Celebration of the Sacraments, discussed “Sacred Art in the Thought of Joseph Ratzinger”. The Pope is acutely aware that the contemporary crisis in art is a symptom of modernity’s crisis of identity, with the result that art today is neither refreshing nor inspiring. This is because modernity denies the transcendental nature of beauty, the identity of beauty with truth and goodness. This has had a profound influence on the art and architecture found in our churches. The heresy of iconoclasm (the destruction of images) thus returned with a vengeance. Statues and images were removed from churches and often destroyed. They were sometimes replaced by abstract art that simply confuses. One contributor commented that many modern churches have all the attraction of a fridge. Ratzinger once said, in effect, that the complete absence of images is not a Christian option. However, the romantic but basically modernist solution of A.W. Pugin, who recognized only the mediaeval art as truly Christian was also criticized, as it had been by Newman in his own day. The Pope calls for a truly creative sacred art that is at the same time contemporary and creative of something entirely new.

The Canadian editor of the periodical, Antiphon: A Journal for Liturgical Renewal, Dr Neil J. Roy read a scholarly paper on the richness of the Roman Canon, its internal order and beauty. He paid special attention to the lists of saints mentioned before and after the Consecration, showing how there was nothing arbitrary about the composition of the lists. The saints mentioned there cover the entire spectrum of saints and are arranged under two “headings”, as it were, that of Our Lady on the one hand and St John the Baptist on the other, two saints who are depicted in sacred art both in the East and in the West as petitioning Our Lord on behalf of sinners.

The guest of honour and keynote speaker at the conference was the Argentinean Archbishop, Jorge Maria Cardinal Mejia. His opening address was on the problem of translation. Pointing out that translation was a consequence of sin, he outlined the biblical understanding of the origin of languages in the original sin that led to the Tower of Babel, punishment for which was the origin of the various languages of the world. Scripture also points to the healing that came with Pentecost and the gift of the Holy Spirit which enable humanity to communicate with a common language once again, that of the faith. His scholarly discourse on the various translations of the Bible illuminated the significance and the limits to all attempts at translation Cardinal Mejia also presided over and preached at the concelebrated Mass according to the new rite (the Novus Ordo of Paul VI) in Latin in the magnificent Cobh Cathedral. The Lassulus singers of Dublin provided the music of Palestrina for the Mass. Their singing was as close to perfection as is possible, remarked the Cardinal at the end of Mass. This solemn Mass demonstrated that the new rite, when properly celebrated, can also be magnificent. It also can effect that “sursum corda”, that raising of our hearts to God, the angels and the saints in communal worship, which is the object of authentic sacred liturgy.

[In addition to this press release, here is the full text of the opening address of the conference by Professor D. Vincent Twomey.]

Against my better judgment (which is not all that good so I don’t feel too concerned about it), I have been convinced by some, and for one last time, to re-enter the fray associated with the propriety of breastfeeding at Mass. A previous post of mine used this issue as a point of departure in order to discuss one very important issue of concern to me that is underlying this question; namely, the distinction between authentic shame and “manichaean” shame. Here I used Kate Wicker’s fine article on Inside Catholic as my foil (see my previous post for a link).

Kate and I began an off-line discussion that included Steve Skojec’s defense of her against, what I agree, were some unwarranted, personal attacks. Steve’s post was a very good and compelling defense of anyone who might have been motivated by a false anthropology; Puritanism or Manichaeism to follow his identifications of the errors. Steve provided copious historical support for his argument using various authoritative (theological) writings and links to a slew of relevant religious art. However, I must admit that, supporting data aside, I do not think that Steve’s argument went much beyond Kate’s.

His argument seems to assume that the only objection to breastfeeding at Mass is Puritanism or Manichaeism (or any other like-minded dualist error I would add). I did not read through all of the negative comments to Kate’s post so I am unsure if Steve is warranted in making this his only consideration based upon explicit statements or if he is reading this assumption into the comments of those holding the opposite position.

However, even in either case I do not completely follow his argument. Steve begins the post by rightly pointing out that Kate indicated that “discreet” breastfeeding was what she was advocating. He then begins to provide the examples from early Church Fathers, art, etc., convincingly showing that the Church tradition is not a puritanical one. However, he never explains how this lack of puritanical worldview provides justification for breastfeeding at Mass. Perhaps this is because he has not considered that there might be other potential objections, objections that I believe require addressing.

These issues include determining which quotidian activities are appropriate considering the great solemnity of the Sacrifice of the Mass. Ideally there would be no everyday activities that are not directly associated with active participation in the Mass, though we all recognize that this is impossible this side of the Resurrection. ) in light of the solemnity of the Mass.

What specifically are the issues with breastfeeding? As I see it they are threefold. The first is the issue of temptation, the second is distraction, the third is (I dare not use the terms as it would surely be misread) bringing in mundane activities that are unnecessary as they imply the Mass to be something less than it is.

Temptation: Kate clearly states that she is advocating being discrete. Steve restates this in his post. Still, there is the question, in my mind anyway, of how discrete one can be given the very close quarters in most pews. Shy actually covering the nursing infant, which so many seem unwilling to do, this seems to me an open question.

Distraction: This is, potentially, a very involved discussion and can take us far afield of the issue at hand. In order to preempt some possible responses, let me say that I fear that an quick dismissal of any possible objections with a laundry list of other such mundane activities that are now common place misses the point and does not lead me to have confidence that the one arguing takes this concern with sufficient seriousness.

The considerations specifically with breastfeeding include discerning between what is necessary vs. what is preferable/convenient. I understand the concerns with ecological breastfeeding and the possible disturbance that pumped breast milk given with a bottle, especially for daily communicants, might introduce. However, even in the case of necessity there are many necessities for which we must excuse ourselves, but admittedly, others for which we do not. The issue gets more complex in terms of which sacrifices must be made to protect the sanctity of the Mass and which would not be true sacrifices as they would lead more to undermining the purpose of Mass attendance if they are made.

While probably unnecessary, let me still summarize the problem with distractions (which also is relevant to the solemnity discussion to follow). The Mass is the making present of the Sacrifice of the Cross and the heavenly, eternal Wedding Feast of the Lamb. It draws those participating together with every saint and everything in history from creation to the eschaton, and incorporates all of this into the eternal heavenly liturgy. In the Mass, heaven touches earth and we offer ourselves totally to God. We are drawn up into the Trinitarian life for which we were created. Those activities which draw us away from or distract us from this realization and our “active participation” (read conscious self-offering) in it, though in our fallen state these cannot be eliminated, must still be minimized.

Distraction can include, not only the distraction of others who are not used to breastfeeding, but also the distraction of the mother who will likely experience an oxytocin “high” which will likely move her attention more toward her bonding with her child than with her attention, to the degree this is otherwise possible, to the Sacrifice and her part in it.

Bringing in the mundane: Again, considering the great solemnity of the Mass, no activities which are fine in and of themselves in other contexts, can be allowed to detract from the meaning of the Mass. As we would not (or should not anyway) use the Mass as an opportunity to visit with friends, feed our children, do our checkbook, etc., we should be careful about other mundane activities as well and carefully discern, as I said above, their absolute necessity. In other words, we must be able to find that the greater damage would be done if we were not to do some such activity.

Another consideration with Steve’s post is as follows. It seems to me that he undermines his main argument in the post. Let me explain what I mean. He begins and ends with an emphasis on being discrete. This seems to concede that there is something private about breastfeeding. However, he then he spends all of his support suggesting that there is no need for privacy because Catholics are not Puritans. For example, his reference to depictions of the Blessed Virgin’s exposed breast during her breastfeeding of our Lord. If the only reason for arguing against breast feeding at Mass is because one is a crypto-Puritan or Manichee and carnality is good and in line with Catholic tradition, I am not sure why he would then emphasize that it be done discretely. If there is not contradiction in this line of argument there is at least some missing steps.

Let me summarize that Steve’s post is written in exceptionally well stated prose and is supported by interesting and helpful facts but it does not address any of those issues which I think are the real ones needing consideration.

Now I know most will assume that I am saying that breastfeeding at Mass is wrong. I am not. In fact, I am still discerning whether this beautiful, necessary, intimate, noble, laudable, self-sacrificing act is appropriate in the context of Mass. The issue has nothing to do with there being a problem with breastfeeding; if it is problematic in Mass (and I will repeat that I am not convinced it is or is not) it has to do with the nature of the Mass. In no way could a negative answer to the question be used to denigrate breastfeeding.

I believe that there is a need for all mother who are able, to breastfeed their children and there is a need for society to support and accommodate this. I will also say that I think that discrete breastfeeding in public, where most of these issues go away, should be supported and be seen as common place. I say all of this because I detect there is a subliminal tendency on the part of many who are committed to breastfeeding to consider those who do not support it unreservedly in all situations (read the Mass), as not adequately understanding its importance.

O.k., I am now prepared to deal with the accusations that I hate women, children, and live in an antiseptic, imagined world . . . I think . . .

I have recently had the pleasure to read Tracey Rowland’s new book on the Holy Father, Ratzinger’s Faith: The Theology of Pope Benedict XVI.

I hope to do a thorough review of it at some point in the future. But, for now, something struck me quite forcefully while reading it, and that I want to bring up. The Holy Father, who cut his theological teeth on Saint Augustine and Saint Bonaventure, has in the past expressed a connection between the Thomist mode of theologizing and unconcern for the ambience in which the liturgical act is carried out. As everyone knows, Cardinal Ratzinger had been sharply critical of the Lercaro/Bugnini-led implementation of post-conciliar liturgical reform. But how did a certain type of Thomist theologizing contribute to the pragmatism and utilitarianism that marked the reforms implemented by Lercaro and Bugnini?

In chapter 6 of Rowland’s excellent book, we see that Cardinal Ratzinger saw two factors from within the Thomist tradition that contributed to the misdirection of liturgical reform. The first was an over-reliance on the form-matter distinction in sacramental theology. According to Ratzinger, theologians operating from within the Thomist tradition (or the Neo-Scholastic tradition generally) tended to reduce the central core of liturgy to the matter that is the bread and wine of the Eucharist and the form that is the words of institution. Everything else in the liturgy was considered to be a disposable element. Taking this as one’s starting point for liturgical reform, liturgists were free to engage in a process of incessant “updating” of all the other elements of the liturgy - precisely the lamentable situation that the post-conciliar Church has found herself in.

The second problematic aspect of the Thomist tradition in regard to liturgy, according to Ratzinger, has to do with a pragmatic understanding of the role of music in liturgy. This understanding of liturgical music goes back to Thomas himself. It is not just a product of his later followers. In question 91, article 2, of his Summa Theologica, Thomas said that it is justifiable to use music in liturgy because “the minds of the weak are more effectively summoned to piety” by it. Ratzinger (according to Rowland) takes this to mean that, for Thomas, church music has nothing more than a pedagogical function and is subject to the standards of utility: it is reduced to its utilitarian function - it must be a popular form of music and usefulness for instruction. In fact, Karl Rahner and Herbert Vorgrimler had used this very notion of Thomas’s to defend the replacement of “sacred music” with “utility music” (folk music, pop music, etc.). Ratzinger, contra the Thomist presupposition of Rahner and Vorgrimler, defends sacred music on p. 118-19 of his Feast of Faith:

The movement of spiritualization in creation is understood properly as bringing creation into the mode of being of the Holy Spirit and its consequent transformation, exemplified in the crucified and resurrected Christ. In this sense, the taking up of music into the liturgy must be its taking up into the Spirit, a transformation which implies both death and resurrection. That is why the Church has had to be critical of all ethnic music; it could not be allowed untransformed into the sanctuary. The cultic music of pagan religions has a different status in human existence from the music which glorifies God in creation. Through rhythm and melody themselves, pagan music often endeavors to elicit ecstasy of the senses, but without elevating the sense into the spirit; on the contrary, it attempts to swallow up the spirit in the senses as a means of release. This imbalance toward the senses recurs in modern popular music: the ‘God found here, the salvation of man identified here, is quite different from the God of the Christian faith. (Quoted by Rowland, p. 132)

In reading Rowland, one gets the sense that, at root, the difference between the Holy Father and the Thomists has to do with placing a different level of importance on the transcendental of beauty. The Holy Father, much like Hans Urs von Balthasar and the entire tradition of Christian Platonism, thinks that beauty, truth, and goodness are coequal with being as such. Many in the Thomist tradition, however, tend to drop beauty from the list of transcendentals. This leads to a certain level of utilitarianism when it comes to considering the role and value of culture and cult in Christian existence.

Interestingly, Rowland, in her concluding chapter, shows that John Paul II and Benedict XVI, for all of their profound sympathies with one another, differ on precisely this issue. John Paul II took a more pragmatic, Thomist view of Christianity in relation to the culture: because beauty did not have the same importance for him as it does for Benedict. Benedict takes a more Augustinian view (I would broaden the category and refer to it as a more “Christian Platonist” view). However, it is important to note that Rowland dismisses dubious attempts by the likes of the American theologian Joseph Komonchak to pit JP II and Benedict XVI against one another precisely on their “Thomism” and “Augustinianism.” Komonchak makes the claim that JP II’s Thomism made him more optimistic toward modern culture, while Ratzinger’s Augustinianism makes him more pessimistic toward modern culture. Rowland rightly points out, in refuting Komonchak, that, on the one hand, JP II condemned the “culture of death,” and, on the other hand, Benedict XVI is open to dialogue with modern culture. Still, there does seem to be a palpable difference between them on the role and value for Christian liturgy and proclamation of modern art and music, and Rowland does not deny it. The difference between them, I would point out, might be illustrated by their respective choices for Master of Pontifical Ceremonies.

So, I come back to the question in the title of this post. Do Thomists make bad liturgists?

Attention: this post contains a mild, clinical discussion of certain aspects of the marital act with respect to condom use for the sake of moral analysis. Those who might be adverse to such a discussion should not proceed.

The debate about the use of condoms for protection against HIV is not anything new. What is new, it seems to me, is for any official body within the Catholic Church advocating condom use in any situation. A Philippine Star article reports that the Episcopal Commission for Pastoral Care for Migrants and Itinerant People within the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines (CBCP) has now said that condom use may be permitted in some situations.

Here are a few relevant quotes from the article:

Fr. Edwin Corros, executive secretary of the CBCP-Episcopal Commission for Pastoral Care for Migrants and Itinerant People (ECMI), however, said condom use should be “the last resort.”

Before using condoms, the partners should try abstinence and faithfulness to each other.

He clarified that the Church is only allowing the use of condoms in order to save a life – the life of the patient’s partner. “But you see by using that (condom) we are not actually endorsing condom use. We would like to prevent deaths in the family.”

“I also think that the person also has the right to express the love to his or her partner. So this is practical. (Besides) you cannot also be sure that using condom would be 100-percent proof,” Corros said.

Hopefully Fr. Corros is simply being misquoted. However, if not, there are a host of problematic aspects to his position. The first problem is that he does not make it explicit that when he is talking about “partners” the only acceptable partners are a man and woman in the covenant of marriage.

With respect to condom use itself, what appears to be severely faulty thinking is evident in these few quotes. To summarize what seems to be Fr. Corros position is that he acknowledges the Church rejects the use of condoms but he still says that they can be licitly used anyway in order to save a life.

What is very questionable, is that he goes on to suggest that the right to “express love to a partner” (problematic wording again) seems to trump the Church’s teaching against the use of condoms. This, perhaps indicates a mistaken notion about the problem associated with condom use.

He clarifies that he is not endorsing condom use but he still makes the clearly erroneous claim that “the Church” is allowing their use to save a life. Clearly “the Church” is not. At best, the CBCP is erroneously permitting their use. What is more likely is that his commission has illicitly decided to permit them. What Fr. Corros appears to be trying to argue is that condoms can be allowed under the principle of double effect. If so, what Fr. Corros fails to understand is the way the double effect works.

In analyzing the morality of an act one must look at three aspects. The object, the intention, and the circumstances (following the Catechism of the Catholic Church rather than the Thomist definition of these terms). The object and the intention are closely related, but the object is what the action accomplishes according to which an outside observer can determine. The intention is interior and something only accessible to the actor. It is what he intends to accomplish by the act. Both object and intention must be morally good for the action to be good. The circumstances simply increase or decrease the moral culpability or moral merit, whichever the case may be.

In order for double effect to apply both the object and intention of the act must be good. If both both object and intention are morally licit, what double effect then looks to are the outcomes. In the case when the outcomes of good acts are evil but unintended, then double effect may be able to be applied. In order to determine whether the evil that comes from these good acts can be permitted, one must determine that the evil which comes about must be much less than the evil that would occur if the act were not taken. If the evil coming from the act is proportionately less, then the act can be permitted…though, again, the evil effect cannot be intended but simply, reluctantly accepted. The acceptance of these unintended consequences of morally good acts, is considered the principle of double effect.

What Fr. Corros seems to concentrate on here is the intention only, ignoring the object. The object of the action, in using a condom during the marital act, cannot be separated from the meaning of the marital act itself. That is why the Church calls the use of artificial contraception in general, and condom use in particular, intrinsically evil. This is because the introduction of a condom into marital intercourse destroys the form of the act on many levels as a variety of authors have pointed out. It not only destroys the procreative meaning but it also distorts the unitive meaning as well. The use of the condom is intrinsically evil (though most moral theologians, but not all, agree that a perforated condom for the sake of collecting a portion of the ejaculate for fertility assessment is licit because it resolves to a minimum degree, these issues) and so it may never be permitted for any reason. Because the condom is intrinsically evil, the conjugal rights of the married couple can never justify the use of a condom. Thus, one cannot legitimately say that its use saves a life.

Fr. Corros seems to recognize the difficulty with his position in his self-contradiction (”the Church is only allowing”–it isn’t; and “we are not actually endorsing.”). This faulty thinking is not uncommon, unfortunately. However, it points to the need for local and regional organs of the Church to consult the CDF for guidance prior to “going it alone” with novel practices which contradict the traditional practice of the Church, especially in such complex issues.

I suspect that this constitutes the mistake of a small group within the Philippine’s National Conference and will be corrected either by the National Conference, or if not and it makes its way that far, by the CDF.

For those who might be interested in St. John’s Catholic Newman Center’s new facilities, allowing it now to house almost 600 students and minister to thousands, here is a preview of the new and the renovated facility (its has a 12 min run time):

John Paul the Great’s Theology of the Body is very popular today with many young, faithful Catholics. That is a very good thing. However, there are at least two groups of folks who are not all that pleased with it. One of these groups is not surprising.

It is generally eschewed by those who promote sexual license, if not wanton promiscuity, at least in ways that reject the meaning of the human person and sexuality as authoritatively taught by the Church (read here same sex attraction disorder, sex outside of the marital union, etc.). Because it clearly shows how the human person is made to be complementary in terms of sexual difference and the real meaning of the sex can only be authentically understood in terms of a marital act, it negates the legitimacy of these folks’ attempts to insert pagan sexual “enlightenment” into Catholic theological discourse.

Another group that is unsure about it are those of a more traditionalist bent. This group is generally familiar with it through its popularizers. A good summary of what this group finds problematic with it, or more precisely they way it is interpreted by some of its popularizers, can be found here. Disregarding the dangers of oversimplifying, which I am wont to do at times, I would say that the way it is presented to them they believe that it goes against Church tradition in terms of modesty and purity.

The concerns that Michael J. Matt (see the previous link) summarizes were evident in the comments on an article that Hierothee pointed me to on Inside Catholic. Kate Wicker, the author of the article, writes about her overcoming her “shame” about breast feeding during Mass. As justification, she cites Christopher West as an authority on JPTG’s Theology of the Body:

Christopher West, the Catholic author best known for his insightful commentary on John Paul II’s Theology of the Body, describes a nursing mother as “one of the most precious, most beautiful, and most holy of all possible images of woman.” So why should I feel ashamed nursing in church — in the presence of the Most Holy Eucharist — but not at the mall? Do I believe breasts are made to feed babies or are they just meant to be squeezed into rhinestone-clad bras for surfers to ogle on the Internet?

Kate gets what seems to me (I did not read all of the comments, much less tally them) an evenly mixed response between those who support her and those taking issue with her. In a relatively early reply (in the combox section, #27) she again goes back to Christopher West in support of her position:

An article by Christopher West is what inspired me to write this article. I’m going to take the easy way out rather than addressing everyone’s comments indvidually and share some of the article here. I also want to mention that I’m not saying we should be giving kids of all ages snacks at Mass. My preschooler is not allowed any food or drinks in Mass. We are supposed to be fasting before receiving the Eucharist and children (even those who have not made their First Communion yet) can wait to nosh until after Mass.

However, babies’ wants and needs are the same thing. A hungry baby needs to be fed and cannot be spoiled by responding to his/her needs. (This may spur another debate). Also, as some of you have pointed out, nursing DISCREETLY is key. Even when I’m at the beach where women are walking around in string bikinis, I nurse so discreetly most people wouldn’t have any idea I was feeding my baby.

Still, I’m always amazed by how the idea of nursing still makes so many people uncomfortable. So without further ado, here’s an excerpt from Christopher West’s article entitled “Nursing a Sexually Wounded Culture.”

“I remember attending the Second World Meeting of John Paul II with Families in Brazil in 1997. Nursing mothers were a common sight at this international gathering. What I found intriguing, however, was that women from “first-world” nations tended to drape themselves and sit off in a corner, while women from other nations seemed to have no qualms whatsoever about feeding their babies in full view of others. I remember one woman unabashedly roaming the crowd passing all manner of bishops and cardinals with her breast fully exposed while her child held on to it with both hands happily feeding. The only people flinching seemed to be those from the northern hemisphere.

Isn’t it interesting that the part of the world producing the most pornography and exporting it to the rest of the globe has seemed to lose all sense of the true meaning of the human breast? What a commentary on the sad state of our sexually wounded culture! Breasts have been so “pornified” that we can fall into thinking that even their proper use is shameful. In other words, we have been so conditioned to see a woman’s body through the prism of lust that we find it very difficult to recognize the purity and innocence of breast-feeding.

St. Paul hit the nail on the head when he said, “To the pure all things are pure, but to the impure nothing is pure” (Ti 1:15). It is a tragically impure world that labels the purity of a baby at the breast as “gross.””

God bless!

Written by Kate Wicker

I have not followed Christopher West much at all so I do not wish to take these few decontextualized comments to characterize what very well could be a more nuanced position. So let me comment on what Kate and others seem to be getting from him.

It is interesting that Kate uses the term “shame” to characterize her initial feelings about breastfeeding in Church. Shame is in fact a central theme in JPTG’s Theology of the Body. Interestingly enough, it is not a purely negative concept for him. John Paul finds that shame serves an essential function in our fallen state.

He makes it clear that concupiscence is an ill fruit of the Fall and that this proclivity to sin will always be with us until we die. In fact, John Paul is adamant that we cannot authentically interpret our current experiences without understanding the “man of concupiscence” (the earlier translation used the “man of lust” which I find more appealing for its dramatic tone but as the translator of the updated edition points out, concupiscence is a more accurate rendering of what JPTG intends). The man of concupiscence is in a continual struggle against temptations to sin, especially sexual sins.

John Paul makes distinctions among many types of shame. He terms sexual shame the fear of being reduced by another to one’s sexual value. This is a great temptation in the fallen state. Concupiscence leads one who is exposed to those aspects of another’s body (the opposite sex for the vast majority who do not suffer from SSAD) which reveal his sexual value, to see only the sexual value and not the entire person. In seeing only the sexual value, one then reduces the other to this value. This reduction is the sin of lust when it is consented to.

John Paul says that the body’s sex reveals its spousal meaning but this meaning is nearly (but not completely) annihilated by concupiscence. Thus, sexual shame serves the purpose of trying to restore the body’s nuptial meaning. It promotes modesty. The modest person covers those aspects of his body which lead him to be reduced to his sexual value. These of course include the genitals for both sexes as well as the breasts for women which uniquely point to their sexual value as mothers, though some other secondary sexual characteristics can also be problematic. Christopher West, by the way, is correct that the sexual value of the female breast has been gravely distorted by our “pornified” culture making it not a sign of motherhood but of sexual use for pleasure (however, even if he correctly interprets his observations in terms of a trend I do not think that it is legitimate to intuit that the first world women were uniformly motivated by Manicheaism and the third world women were motivated by a healthy understanding of their bodies).

Sexual shame serves an important function with a two fold purpose. Thus, John Paul does not dismiss it as something to be overcome as some seem to infer. First, it motivates one to protect his personhood from being reduced. However, a second motivation is to protect the other person from the loss he will suffer through succumbing to temptation if he were exposed. So one is not only concerned with himself but he also has a grave responsibility for the other as well.

In his Theology of the Body, John Paul takes pains to make the distinction between the Church’s teaching on the body and Manichaeism which is a hatred for the body. He does this because he recognizes that superficially, one can interpret actions motivated by modesty for the sake of purity to be those motived by a Manichean outlook. The latter is termed prudishness or puritanism. This distinction is of fundamental importance. Without understanding it, one can fall into a category error and so misread much of John Paul’s writings.

Here is where I think the problem lies in the way many understand the Theology of the Body. They recognize that the body is good and has a good meaning but they miss the fact that concupiscence demands modesty for one’s own sake and especially for the sake of others.

Women especially have little idea, at least relying only on their own experiences, the effect that their bodies can have on men. Women in general reduce the man in his body to a use in terms of satisfying relational needs. They do not tend to experience the “testosterone rush” men must cope with when exposed to sometimes even seemingly innocuous feminine movements and gestures, much less more direct evidence of feminine value.

Men, on the other hand, tend to reduce women to their sexual value in terms of use for the sake of pleasure. Some men can experience this temptation so compellingly, that it takes what seems to be superhuman effort to resist. Our oversexed culture reinforces this temptation so greatly that, except for various disorders, this is fairly universal among men (of course it comes in varying degrees based upon temperament, environmental factors, the degree to which he has subjected himself to pornography, etc).

So what is the response to solve this problem. In the traditionalist post above, Michael Matt references a comment by Christopher West that seems to suggest that one should by some means (we can safely assume that if he is suggesting this that it be through self control aided by sacramental grace) overcome these temptations and no longer be subject to them. West references Karol Wojtyla’s Love and Responsibility:

John Paul II warned that if chastity is lived in a repressive way, it’s only a matter of time before sexual desires explode (see Love and Responsibility, pp. 170-171). I think we find here a key for understanding the sexual revolution of the 20th century. It was a ticking time bomb waiting to detonate in response to the prudery and repressiveness of the previous era.

Unfortunately, this is also what Kate seems to take from Christopher West’s statements. However, If one reads the passage cited above completely, one will see that Wojtyla makes it clear that repressiveness has the same superficial response as modesty. One still says “no”, but for a different reason. One says no to exposure to the body in its nakedness for the sake of seeing the whole person, not because the body is evil. Wojtyla understands that mistaking the body for an evil gives more “ammunition” if you will, for temptations. Thus, it is important to understand the Wojtyla/JPTG is not suggesting that we can set aside modesty.

Now we could make precisions in what John Paul the Great says about the naked body. He does find that it is possible to present it in art. He generally finds that the naked body should not be the subject of photography because there is not the ability to control the presentation of the whole person as there is in mediums like paintings, sculpture, and drawings. Nevertheless, not everyone can expose themselves to even authentically portrayed nudity in art, even if the majority can safely do so. For all of whom this might be problematic he has the obligation to avoid the near temptation to sin.

So what is the end result. I will say first, that one cannot legitimately point to John Paul II’s Theology of the Body as a defense for the decision to breastfeed during Mass. There are other issues to consider here as well to consider, not the least of which is the restraint demanded against even pure and noble, but still mundane activities, because of the solemnity of the Sacrifice of the Mass (can a bottle of breast milk substitute in this one limited case?).

Nevertheless, if someone’s prudential judgment dictates it is legitimate, after very serious consideration of the issue, one must not blithely dismiss covering oneself under the misguided notion that it necessarily implies Manichaeism or that one has no duty to safeguard the purity of others for whom such potential exposure might be a temptation to sin.

The feminine breast is a beautiful sign of motherhood, especially when a baby is being suckled. It is a shame that not everyone can enjoy such a sight without temptation. But that is the state in which we live. The man of concupiscence must be ever vigilant. He must not try to pretend he can bring back original innocence. John Paul the Great is adamant that the threshold was crossed and can never again be restored. Grace and cooperation with it through practice of the cardinal virtues is essential to self-possession, the precursor to holiness. However, this grace is given now to the man of concupiscence in a way not given to man in original innocence. We cannot forget that until we reach heaven, we are living East of Eden and shame will always be an ally.

In the most recent issue of the University Bookman, the publication of the Russell Kirk Research Center, James Seaton provides a review of Anthony Kronman’s book on the death of humanities programs in Western universities: Education’s End: Why Our Colleges and Universities Have Given Up on the Meaning of Life (published by Yale University Press in 2007). Seaton entitles his piece A Stirring Defense of the Conversation. Kronman’s main thesis is that the research ideal adopted by universities after the Civil War, when eventually combined with 60s-era political correctness, has made it impossible for humanities departments to fulfill their task. Kronman sees this task as one of providing a forum for an open-ended, free debate on the meaning of life, though centered on attention to the classical texts of the Western tradition.

According to Seaton, Kronman suggests returning to the ideal of “secular humanism” that was central to the humanities departments prior to the 1960s. In those presumably halcyon days, humanities professors were unashamed about asking and answering questions about how we should live or what we should care about. Kronman is said to claim that these are precisely the sorts of questions that are dismissed in most contemporary universities, where intellectual debate about the essential issues of life is stifled by the assimilation of the study of the humanities to the ideals of scientific research and by multiculturalism.

Seaton tells us of Kronman’s (in my view) ridiculous proposal for the revival of the humanities: in part, it involves the apparent imperative that religion should not be allowed as a topic for consideration in the classroom. For, according to Kronman, religions all presume that there is only one true answer to the question of the meaning of life, and this we cannot have in a free and open society.

Seaton only mildly criticizes Kronman for a certain level of rhetorical abuse on this point. As far as Seaton is concerned, Kronman has brilliantly diagnosed the problem in contemporary universities. Only his solution might need to be modified.

But it seems to me that Kronman’s suggested solution is demonstrative of such a wild misunderstanding of human history that it must surely render pointless the rest of his discussion. Kronman, Seaton tells us, claims to be no enemy of religion. Well, he may be no enemy of religion, but he must surely be - given his recommended solution to the crisis of the humanities - an enemy of informed knowledge about human history.

One cannot undertake a study of the humanities without making religion central to it. The classical texts of the Western tradition - and of all cultures - are by-and-large religious texts. The great answers to the deepest questions of life are all religious by nature. Indeed, the very questions themselves are fundamentally religious. In fact, the very historical root of philosophy, as the best anthropological studies have shown us, was in reflection upon religious ritual and myth. All cultures and civilizations have been rooted in religion - and perhaps the West most of all. The very word “culture” is derived from “cultus,” which is the foundational religious activity of any civilization. Modern science arose in the West because a settled instinct about the rationality and contingency of the universe was nurtured in the hearts and minds of European humanity by participation, through the centuries, in the sacred liturgy of the Church.

The Russell Kirk Center, as many may know, is a locus of the conservative movement. Seaton’s review of Kronman’s book demonstrates a problem that continues to beset the movement: a harboring of sympathy to notions of history that equate secularism and progress. This leads to a monumental blind-spot regarding interpretations of the nature of philosophy, art, literature, culture, and science. With such a blind-spot, how can we trust their proposed solutions for reviving the humanities? Of course, the problem is that the conservative movement is too closely tied to classical liberalism, but that’s a story for another day…

If what is said in this review of Kronman’s book is true, then the only conversation to which he is contributing is that of how to keep the humanities permanently dead and buried.

Hierothee passed along the latest in archeologism that the popular press expects will force a revision of the “Jesus story.” A short summary for those who are not familiar with it and don’t want to follow the link: about a decade ago, a three foot high tablet with 87 lines of Hebrew text was found, probably in the region of the Dead Sea in Jordan. The authenticity has not yet been questioned, and the dating is believed to be no later than the first century BC.

The text is somewhat illegible in parts, and so there is necessarily some interpolation required. Such is the case in a specific area of the text which some have read to suggest that the Messiah will die and rise in three days. This is being promoted by at least one “scholar” and, of course, the media, to suggest that Jesus simply heard about this tradition and applied it to himself. In other words, they suppose that if the prediction of a suffering Messiah existed in the Jewish tradition prior to Jesus’ arrival then one must suppose that this prediction brings into question any subseque