by

Benedict XVI back home – two interesting photos

A couple of days ago Benedict XVI, Bishop Emeritus of Rome, returned to the Vatican. His dower house, Mater Ecclesiae, has been made ready for him, and Pope Francis toddled down from the big house to welcome him. Some have suggested that it is awkward for Pope Francis to have his predecessor living in the garden. If so, he hides it supremely well.

Perhaps I am reading too much into the angle of the photo, but Benedict seems much gaunter in the face, and slimmer in the body. Age seems suddenly to have hit him. Is he well? If not, is this possibly one small reason why no live coverage of his return was allowed by the Vatican? It adds an ominous undertone to a lovely picture.

Another picture has emerged from the day. It shows Pope Francis and Benedict at prayer in the dower house chapel shortly after Benedict’s arrival.

After struggling still to absorb the remarkable sight of two live popes at prayer together, my eye wandered around the chapel. It’s lovely.

The chapel is utterly simple and un-ostentatious (it is not only Pope Francis who can be so, though he certainly is). Yet, for all its simplicity, it is utterly Catholic. To my poorly trained eye, it looks as one might have hoped for a chapel to look in the wake of Vatican II’s document on the liturgy, Sacrosanctun Concilium. The focus is exclusively on the altar, the place of the Sacrifice, symbol of the Cross and of Christ himself. It is a symbolism boldly affirmed by the imposing yet elegant crucifix above the altar. The altar faces East, the direction of the rising sun and the Returning Son, the ancient and now so tragically neglected direction of Christian prayer and worship. The altar is dressed simply but worthily. Christ abides in the small tabernacle directly behind the altar. The big six are there too, appropriately sized.  The Paschal Candle is the only other object to compete with the altar for attention. However, one might reasonably suspect there is an image or statue of our Lady in there as well. St Joseph too? The Sacred Heart? St Benedict?! Hopefully we will be allowed a few more glimpses into the dower chapel.

It strikes me that this chapel is undoubtedly fitted out according to Benedict’s desires, shows Benedict’s commitment to the liturgical vision of Vatican II. That is not quite the same as a commitment to the liturgy as it is most often celebrated around the world. Cloistered with the Cross though he now is, Benedict still witnesses to the liturgy the Church treasures and deserves, even if only God and the angels might see it day by day.

Still, now we too have had a brief and privileged glimpse. It is enough, let us pray, to remind the Church of Benedict’s parting call to rediscover the “true Council”. Just as the Council’s decrees began with the liturgy, so may the Church look again to the Council’s liturgical reforms as they actually decreed them, and confirm whether it is these reforms we were given. If so, let us rejoice. If not, let us waste no time in reclaiming them.

May the Lord protect and defend Pope Francis and Benedict; may they both bear much fruit to God’s glory and our good.

by

Update on Tablet letter

It seems that while my letter to The Tablet was not printed, it has been included in the journal’s online Letters Extra page. I know this because the abbey has received some hate mail about it (hate is too strong a word, but you get my drift).

The email in question was remarkable in seeming to have nothing to do with my letter at all. To refresh your memory, my letter went thus:

It seems to be the spirit of the time to return to old simplicities, and many of your correspondents last week (Letters, 20 April) seemed intent on reviving the ancient simplicity of slaying the bearer of unwelcome tidings.

In addressing a clarification issued by my confrère, Fr Paul Gunter OSB, in his capacity as Secretary of the Bishops’ Department for Christian Life & Worship, they gave the impression that they saw Fr Gunter as peddling his own personal opinions. In fact he was doing his official duty in reminding the clergy of the pertinent facts and liturgical laws as they stand with regard to the optional rite of mandatum on Maundy Thursday. These are laws which Fr Gunter has not the power to change. Those who object to them would better serve their cause, and charity, by addressing their complaints to the Holy See.

One point raised against him merits particular attention. Fr Jim Lawlor asks Fr Gunter why “restorationists” allow themselves to see as exemplary the liturgical practice of Benedict XVI, yet refuse to allow Pope Francis’ liturgical praxis to be likewise exemplary.

Surely the answer is clear with but a moment’s reflection. Benedict XVI retrieved legitimate elements of Catholic liturgical tradition to enrich the celebration of the modern liturgy in accord with its proper laws and theology. Pope Francis’ mandatum contravened both current liturgical law and its theology. As pope, Francis has the power to dispense himself from such laws ad hoc. This dispensation does not extend to the rest of the Church.

It may be that Pope Francis will change the theology and rubrics of the mandatum. Until he does, however, priests are obliged to celebrate the Church’s liturgy in its integrity and not their personal versions of it. To the best of my memory neither Vatican II, nor the subsequent reform of the liturgy, gave priests a mandate to do whatever they want in the liturgy.

Here is the email received by the abbey’s central email address:

re your letter in The Tablet

Thankfully, women and men have had their feet washed over decades in the parishes I’ve attended throughout the country – certainly all my adult life and I’m in my mid-50s!

I realise that over a thousand years ago people thought that women were the result of imperfect seeds, such as a damp wind, but times have moved on. We are not sub-standard human beings but full members of humanity and equal, co-creators.

The Church will get there one day. It just takes a bit of time (eg Gallileo).

She (who shall remain unnamed) implicitly accuses me of misogyny in deciding that I need to be reminded that women are “not sub-standard human beings but full members of humanity and equal, co-creators” (though I ask myself if any human person can be called a “co-creator“). How she can base that on what I wrote is truly beyond me.

Of course, the issue is not about me at all. It is all about her. And that is where this sort of irrational, emotive and often hysterical line of argument emerges from. Liturgy – and morality – have become all about what makes “me” feel good and not what rightly honours God in our lives and our worship, nor what is faithful to the essential meaning and symbolism of theology and liturgy.

To be perfectly honest, to argue like this against what I did not write but merely to vent her unreasoning self-obsession only makes me more and more convinced that the Church is right (not that I need convincing).

PS Some credit should be given to The Tablet for allowing unprinted letters still to be seen, if by potentially a smaller readership.

by

The Tablet, and the English bishops: whom do they serve?

Last week in The Tablet the Letters pages were opened to what we were meant to see as a flood of complaints about the statement made by my confrère, Fr Paul Gunter OSB, in his capacity as Secretary of the English Bishops’ Department of Christian Life & Worship. Quoted in the previous edition of The Tablet, he had clarified the status of Pope Francis’ setting aside Church law on reserving the mandatum on Maundy Thursday to males, explaining the reasons behind the law and also why Pope Francis’ actions do not licence clergy to a similar liberty. So he was doing his job.

The gushing stream of outrage from The Tablet’s correspondents was directed at Fr Paul, as if he were imposing his personal opinion on us all. The usual arguments of an emotive, “pastoral” nature were employed. Now Fr Paul is well able to defend himself, and his terse but apposite response has been printed in the latest edition. But I felt it necessary for several reasons, to write in support of Fr Paul for doing his job. My letter has not been printed. I am not surprised. Here is what I wrote:

It seems to be the spirit of the time to return to old simplicities, and many of your correspondents last week (Letters, 20 April) seemed intent on reviving the ancient simplicity of slaying the bearer of unwelcome tidings.

In addressing a clarification issued by my confrère, Fr Paul Gunter OSB, in his capacity as Secretary of the Bishops’ Department for Christian Life & Worship, they gave the impression that they saw Fr Gunter as peddling his own personal opinions. In fact he was doing his official duty in reminding the clergy of the pertinent facts and liturgical laws as they stand with regard to the optional rite of mandatum on Maundy Thursday. These are laws which Fr Gunter has not the power to change. Those who object to them would better serve their cause, and charity, by addressing their complaints to the Holy See.

One point raised against him merits particular attention. Fr Jim Lawlor asks Fr Gunter why “restorationists” allow themselves to see as exemplary the liturgical practice of Benedict XVI, yet refuse to allow Pope Francis’ liturgical praxis to be likewise exemplary.

Surely the answer is clear with but a moment’s reflection. Benedict XVI retrieved legitimate elements of Catholic liturgical tradition to enrich the celebration of the modern liturgy in accord with its proper laws and theology. Pope Francis’ mandatum contravened both current liturgical law and its theology. As pope, Francis has the power to dispense himself from such laws ad hoc. This dispensation does not extend to the rest of the Church.

It may be that Pope Francis will change the theology and rubrics of the mandatum. Until he does, however, priests are obliged to celebrate the Church’s liturgy in its integrity and not their personal versions of it. To the best of my memory neither Vatican II, nor the subsequent reform of the liturgy, gave priests a mandate to do whatever they want in the liturgy.

What is of particular interest to me is that only one letter has been included in the latest Tablet on the subject, Fr Paul’s own reply in his official capacity. To the casual reader the impression might be that a flood of outrage against Fr Paul was received at The Tablet but only a few dribbles in support of him. This is a classic propaganda technique. This impression seems confirmed in another regard, namely Cardinal Schönborn’s recent talk in London, which has been mischievously used by some to convey the impression he supports same-sex civil unions. In last week’s Tablet there was only one letter printed that countered this impression, and that too was a letter from an official of Cardinal Schönborn’s Vienna diocese. Yet I know that at least one other letter was sent in the same vein, by a layman prominent in the City, who wrote in a balanced and reasoned way. His letter was not published.

So, the orthodox line is reduced to representation only by officials; the liberal line (to give it a generous label) is open to clergy and laity in any quantity. So, you can see the propaganda technique here: only officials push the Church’s line – the clergy and laity want change! One thing gives me some cheer though: the vast majority of active young Catholics do not read this quasi-Anglican journal. This does not augur well for the future of The Tablet. Its only hope is to come out of the closet and proclaim its allegiance to Anglicanism, which it serves so well. This should preserve its life a few more years.

The English bishops, too, seem to be serving something/someone other than the Church. It is reported that the General Secretary of the bishops’ conference, speaking on behalf of its president Archbishop Nichols, has assured lawmakers that in the case of a mixed royal marriage the children do not need to be brought up Catholic. Royals are dispensed where commoners are not. There is a long history of making concessions to royalty, so there is no real surprise here. It is being painted as a “pastoral” approach. But it raises two points in my mind:

(1) Do the bishops believe that Jesus is “the way, the truth and the life”; and if so, do they agree with Pope Francis when he preached a few days ago that Jesus cannot be found outside the Church? If so, how can they in good conscience deny royal children born to a Catholic parent the right to find Jesus in his Body the Church? Surely the only truly “pastoral” approach is one that leads to Jesus where he is truly to be found. Unless, of course, you believe that all the churches are basically equal…

(2) As a strategic tactic it is appallingly inept. Just when lawmakers are openly proposing the removal of the infamous bar on heirs to the throne marrying Catholics, the bishops are surrendering the obligation for a Catholic spouse to raise children as Catholics precisely at the moment when there is absolutely no need to do so. In fact, the Church should be keeping up the pressure by insisting on the obligation for Catholic royals just as it insists on it for every other Catholic. The bishops seem intent on snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

The Tablet, the English bishops – whom do they serve? Jesus and his Church? That seems an increasingly difficult position to argue.

by

Some Swede?

My favourite Swede should not be left out. And he does not have an identical twin.

By the way, he drew my caricature on the bottom right of the blog. Clever boy all round. But stubborn: he would not do a full version of the theme to Cheers.     :-/

 

UPDATE

They wrote superb TV themes once upon a time:

by

Danes with beer bottles

Some time ago I watched someone’s parody of Carly Rae Jepsen’s catchy pop ditty Call Me Maybe. I have been paying the price since as my various web services, remembering this, keep suggesting other versions of the song. For it seems there are ten gazillion videos of parodies, lip synchs, spoofs and homages to the song, by all sorts of people. Just search in Youtube if you have several hours to kill.

So when I saw in the list “Call Me Maybe on Bottles”, my interest was piqued and I expected to see bottles lined up in a row played by some child prodigy. But no – there was cool, and there were Danes. It seems the Danes of today have turned over a new leaf since the time of their forefathers a millennium ago. I mean 50% of all Copenhageners cycle to work, in part because you can do so without risking death. The place seems so clean and modern and tranquil. If someone needs a companion when visiting Denmark, take me!

So it seems these Danish lads have made a name for themselves beyond this classic. But enjoy this one – it makes me smile every time.

Just …. so …. clever. And the work in emptying all those bottles. Dedication.

by

The reason may have been wrong, but the sentiment was right: on Piero Marini

A couple of weeks back the (then) inexplicably-expedited audience that one-time papal MC Archbishop Piero Marini was granted with Pope Francis caused my heart to sink. Was he to make an (unwelcome) comeback in that role? Some took me to task (especially by email) for being too negative towards him, and I did feel a little more inclined to give him the benefit of any doubt.

But my heart was right to sink, it is just that the reason it should sink has turned out to be different. Note that Marini is President of the Pontifical Committee for International Eucharistic Congresses. He has been in Costa Rica for an Eucharistic congress there, quite rightly. He gave at least one interview, not surprisingly. Did he stick to his portfolio and a few general asides? No chance.

In an interview with a Cost Rican paper, reported on extensively by the National Catholic Reporter, he forged into foreign territory, on two particular fronts. The first, and lesser, was payback to Benedict XVI who did not keep him on as papal MC. No dignified silence from Marini. The second was to contradict Church teaching on a contentious issue. Charitably we might think that he made the silly assumption that simply because one is asked a question, one has to answer it. One doesn’t; and one shouldn’t when it goes against the official teaching of the Church, especially when one is a Vatican official. It isn’t rocket science. Unless of course he had a particular motive…

You can read the article on the NCR link above, but in short he failed on two fronts. The first was from the outset, with thinly veiled criticism of the pontificate of Benedict XVI. Mind you, the questions seemed aimed and eliciting unflattering implications from Marini, and he obliged wholeheartedly:

For you, what has the change in the papacy meant?

It’s a breath of fresh air, it’s opening a window onto springtime and onto hope. We had been breathing the waters of a swamp, and it had a bad smell. We’d been in a church afraid of everything, with problems such as Vatileaks and the pedophilia scandals. With Francis we’re talking about positive things; he puts the emphasis on the positive and talks about offering hope.

Can you describe the atmosphere that prevails now in the Vatican?

In these first days of his pontificate there’s a different air of freedom, a church that’s closer to the poor and less problematic. He doesn’t like living surrounded by great paintings and gold.

So under Benedict XVI there were only the foul vapours of a swamp, negative and without hope, repressed and disdaining simplicity and the poor.  They then ask a remarkable question, leading on from the matter of Francis apparent poverty:

Does it suggest that priests ought to get out of the sanctuaries and share with those in need?

Without a doubt. The new pope has said that pastors ought to have the smell of their sheep, which means living their lives and faith from within the community.

The question itself is ridiculous. First it suggests that priest being in the sanctuaries of their churches (offering Mass, baptising, shriving) is somehow detrimental to priestly life.  Secondly, it suggests that a priest who faithfully carries out his sacramental duties (which only he can, not any old social worker or pastoral worker) is somehow withholding something from those in need. Marini’s answer shows a profound lack of sympathy with his fellow clergy, while otherwise it lacks any substantive meaning at all.

Then they ask him about Bl John Paul II:

In your 18 years as master of ceremonies for John Paul II, what did you learn from being next to a man who was so admired?

I learned his simplicity. He was a very simple, spontaneous person, with great ideas to share with people. He liked to stay with the faithful after Mass, chatting with them. He had worked in a mine, and therefore he knew the reality and the needs of the people.

Is there any conversation, phrase or memory that you’ve held onto with special affection from John Paul II?

I remember we were at World Youth Day in the Philippines, when John Paul II celebrated my 52nd birthday. I had never before blown the candles on a cake, and he brought together a number of people for me to celebrate. He was very friendly, cheerful and spontaneous.

A worthy tribute to a holy pope, but it is what he singles out that should be noted. Not his holiness, his resolute conviction and faith; rather Marini emphasizes his simplicity, human touch, friendliness and his knowledge of the people. He is doing so with rhetorical intent. In light of the previous thinly-veiled hatchet job (if a hatchet job can in fact be veiled at all) on Benedict XVI, the points he highlights can justifiably be read as saying more about what Benedict was not (in his opinion) than about Bl John Paul II.

But he comes of out the shadows to take a direct swipe at the emeritus pope:

Pope Benedict XVI used Twitter as a means of communication, do you think it was effective?

For my part I wouldn’t have used Twitter, but the pope was advised to do it. The church shouldn’t be antiquated, but you also have to exercise a bit of caution.

Poor Benedict: damned if he did; damned if he didn’t.

But the second failure is to have spoken as he did on the explosive subject of same-sex unions:

Costa Rica has opened a discussion about what it means to be a secular state. What do you think of these decisions?

This is already a reality in Europe. A secular state is fine, but if it turns into a secularist state, meaning hostile to the Catholic Church, then there’s something wrong. Church and state should not be enemies to one another. In these discussions, it’s necessary, for instance, to recognize the union of persons of the same sex, because there are many couples that suffer because their civil rights aren’t recognized. What can’t be recognized is that this [union] is equivalent to marriage.

For a start, I am not sure at all that the Church sees a secular state as “fine”. It can tolerably and even profitably work with it, all things being equal, but approve it per se… not so sure about that. This opinion reflects the Church’s view more faithfully. Marini is right to state (the obvious) that the state and the Church should not be enemies, but then immediately proceeds to offer a single example of conflict between Church and state in which he implicitly pitches the Church as the aggressor: to keep the peace “it’s necessary” for the Church ” to recognize the union of persons of the same sex”. In this conflict between Church and state he feels the Church should betray its principles in order to repair the state’s failure to protect the civil rights of individuals in a way consistent with Christian morality. If Marini is ever put in charge of the New Evangelization, it is doomed.

Perhaps my liturgical criticism of Marini was not totally justified, though it was always partly so. However, here Marini parades as an egoist, harsh as that is to say about a curial prelate. What an official working with Eucharistic congresses is doing speaking out on topics beyond his brief and contrary to the Church’s teaching is hard to see, except in a negative light. He has queered the pitch for those whose responsibility it actually is to speak on such contentious issues.

Given the debate noted earlier in the NCR article about what Pope Francis’ position on same-sex unions has been in the recent past, one can only wonder if there is an attempt to nudge the Pope in the direction of accepting civil unions for same-sex couples. Note the thread of thought: wonderful JP II who was in touch with people and their needs; wonderful Pope Francis who is also very simple, a man of the people who wants priests to leave their churches and roll in the earth with the rest of humanity; and nasty Benedict XVI so out of touch, so lacking in the common touch, so negative, who made the Church a swamp. Am I the only one who sees an agenda here?

Archbishop Marini has behaved disgracefully, and indeed (in the canonical sense) scandalously. I, too, smell a swamp creature at hand, but it isn’t Benedict XVI. If the Curia is to be reformed, then perhaps we now have at least one firm idea of where the administrative razor should be slashing.

May God be merciful to Marini, and let us pray for him, a bitter man.