Tuesday 2 October 2012

Liturgy - our work, or our participation in God's work

Today I ran into a claim that
at the pope's Wednesday audience last week, he said, “the word ‘liturgy’ means the participation of the People of God in the work of God.”

A little Googling tells me that it's actually a quote from the Catechism of the Catholic Church, viz:
1069 The word "liturgy" originally meant a "public work" or a "service in the name of/on behalf of the people." In Christian tradition it means the participation of the People of God in "the work of God."5 Through the liturgy Christ, our redeemer and high priest, continues the work of our redemption in, with, and through his Church.
(ref: http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p2.htm)

Footnote 5 refers to . Jn 17:4. - "I have brought you glory on earth by finishing the work you gave me to do."

Now, it makes sense to me that liturgy is one of the ways that we do God's work, in particular one of the ways that we open up God's story and grace to other people by enabling sacramental moments.   But I just cannot wrap my head around the fact that liturgy itself is God's work, not ours.

And there's a wicked voice in my head saying that if it's God's work, then God can get busy organising the rosters, training the readers, preparing the visual-aids, washing the linen, etc - and we'll just show up on time and "participate".





Monday 24 September 2012

I'm centre-left, and I sometimes feed adrift

I came across this blog post the other day:   http://ncronline.org/blogs/all-things-catholic/surprising-support-and-future-center-left

His conclusions are pretty much aimed at American Catholics.    But I found a few part of the reasoning helpful for naming my own position and challenges.
"Ideological labels for the church are notoriously ill-fitting, but if we're going to use them, I prefer the European taxonomy of "left, center-left, center-right, and right"  ... most self-described moderates actually lean one way or the other, but their defining trait is a preference for consensus.
Yup,that one fits.

"... center-left, meaning Catholics whose instincts run to the liberal side but who still believe in working within the system ..."
That one too.

The center-left, however, sometimes seems adrift.
You can find these folks working in chanceries, ministering in parishes and teaching in Catholic schools, not to mention making up a good chunk of the rank-and-file. They don't like some of what they're seeing from Rome and the U.S. bishops, but they don't want to end up in opposition either. It's not always clear to them what the third option might be.
Check.


I've spent a lot of my church-life defining myself as "not":   not conservative, not radical, not a follower of any particular lay movement or religious order.   My understanding of my vocation is to serve God through service of humankind - every day, acting to make the world a slightly better place rather than a slightly worse one.  Very, very occasionally that means doing something profound.   Most of the time it means small actions, like leaving tempting-but-unkind comments un-said and being polite to people who I don't like.    I'm happy to encourage other people in their religious passions, and believe that the world needs some people who are single-minded about issues.   But mostly I'm not so single minded and don't see that my faith or church "must"  revolve around Lourdes, justice & peace, Padre Pio, the Child of Prague, opposing abortion, or whatever.   But I will work very hard so that all these single-issue-supporters can fit in.

What's particualrly nice about the NCR post is that it affirms that there are people like me.   Somehow it's a world view that doesn't get a lot of coverage, and that can be lonely at times

There was one more interesting quote too:
Today, two-thirds of the Catholics on earth live in the southern hemisphere, a share that will be three-quarters by mid-century.

What's most striking is that many northern hemisphere Catholics don't even realise just how profound the north/south differences are.  Whereas southern hemisphere ones grow up with an understanding that seasons - and thus seasonal liturgical paterns - are not universal.


Wednesday 5 September 2012

Faith development - based in the Sunday community, or not?

So my diocese is holding a Mass to launch the Year of Faith - a normal enough thing, I suspect that many places around the world will be doing the same.

Problem is, it's at 3pm on Sunday afternoon.

So there will be some holy-Joes who attend their parish's Sunday Mass and this special one - but is that really healthy faith practise?

There will be some who skip their parish Mass, and go to this one instead. There will be some who go to be seen or to curry favour with the bishop - not actually what Jesus recommended, but common enough human behaviour.

And where will the faithful be? Back home in their parishes, proclaiming the scriptures, handing out the newsletters, making the tea, teaching the children, welcoming visitors, praying for the weary and caring for the needy.

I don't know what the aims of this "year of faith" are (yet), but undermining the place of local communities is not a good way to start.

Tuesday 4 September 2012

Comparing a Bruce Springsteen concert to Mass - what can we learn?

An article from Luke Hill in dotCommonweal about Springsteen's North American "Wrecking Ball" concerts:
Much of the audience at a typical Bruce Springsteen concert looks like the folks you might see at the 11:00 Sunday Mass in suburban parishes across the country. (In some cases, they are the same people.) There’s one notable difference: the people at Springsteen’s shows sing.

Now that's interesting quote - because compared to people in Ireland, many many parishes in America do sing.   Or at least they did in 2007, when I was last there.  Ordinary city-centre and city-fringe parishes, the sort that a tourist might find.     For sure, not everyone sang.   But most places, most people did.   So I'm thinking that Luke is pointing to a differece in enthusiam - which might be described as the level of full active participation.   Bruce has these people singing like they mean it - because he knows that singing together is one effective tool for growing solidarity to beat the problems that sparked the tour - and that's something which the Church needs to learn to do.

Luke's conclusion is that Bruce's message is


When facing hard times that exceed the limits of personal experience, remember your history. Remember those who’ve gone before you. Draw strength from their stories and examples. You may need to do what you’ve never done before ...


It strikes me that's a message which Catholics in Ireland need to hear.  

But it's got to come with a fair dose of discernment:  looking to the past needs to mean a lot lot more than continuing  blaming the [Vikings | English |  Vatican | bishops | priests | nuns].   And we need to find the real spritiual strengths, not simply mimic practices that were adopted to deal with problems at a time, and retained because no one ever said "why?".

Sunday 2 September 2012

Understanding Sacraments - Week six, Marriage

A Theology assignment from 1999.

The Second Vatican Council used the word 'covenant' more commonly than 'contract' to describe the partnership that is marriage. This term recalls the covenant which God made with the Jewish people of Old Testament times, and the new covenant made between God the Church by Christ's coming to earth. It refers primarily to a relationship between people rather than a set of rights and responsibilities, and when the relationship is damaged in some way, personal violation, rather than material loss, is the primary negative effect. Covenant is intrinsically about the deepest meanings in human life, not merely about commercial transactions. As such, it is best understood by ordinary people rather than lawyers(1).   Covenant as a type of relationship is intrinsically witnessed by God rather than by people or human organisations, and entering into them requires a degree of mental, emotional and spiritual maturity (note that these three are never absolute - but our understanding of marriage is such that 'adults' are generally judged to have attained them sufficiently to enter into a marriage covenant).

The use of this word reflected a change in Catholic understanding of the nature of marriage between two baptised persons.   Traditional theology viewed marriage as a sacrament, certainly. But it was a sacrament occurring in the context of a contract between man and woman, rather than in the context of the relationship between them. Adopting the idea of marriage as covenant shifted the fundamental basis for the sacrament of marriage from one which focussed on mutual obligations to one based on the loving commitment between to people.

Lawler argues that the radical and solemn commitment that is implied by covenant is a mutual commitment to:

  • Create a life of equal and intimate partnership in abiding love
  • Create and sustain a climate of personal openness, acceptance, trust and honest that will nurture such an intimate community and the abiding love that is essential to it. This intimate community of love is made possible when certain rules of behaviour are created which will respect , nurture and sustain it
  • Explore together the religious depth of human existence and to respond in the light of Christian faith, and
  • Abide in love and in covenant and to withdraw from them only if the life of intimacy has ceased to exist and if all available means to restore it have been tried and have failed.


The 'rules' in the second point are nothing more (or less) than the fundamental 'rules' for life as a Christian, namely, love and service. There are numerous scriptural passages which show this. This point also relates to the way in which Ephesians 5:22 (Wives, be subject to your husbands, as to the Lord') should be interpreted. The first point to consider in understanding this verse is its wider context. The overall instruction being given in 5:21-33 is that all people should 'be subject to one another out of reverence to Christ'. This was particularly revolutionary to a people living in a culture of extreme hierarchy and dominance. To make the point, the letter-writer provides examples based on ordinary household relationships. Husbands and wives are instructed that their relationships should mirror those of Jesus and his Church, and it is clear (from various parts of scripture and from tradition) that Jesus relationship with the Church is one of leadership through service, not authority. Thus, mutual service, not domination is one of the fundamental rules of Christian marriage, as well as how Christians are to treat one another.

Theologians have defined three different dimensions of human love which are present and necessary in the love between husband and wife.

  • Agape is love for the sake of others, 
  • Philia is love for a friend, 
  • Eros is love for one's own sake. 

All three are necessary components of Christian marriage, if such marriage is to be the whole personal relationship which is necessary fulfil the implications of marriage as a covenant relationship as listed previously. Husband and wife must love each other. They must also be each others best friend, and their life together must satisfy their sexual needs.

Catholic understanding makes a distinction between the sacramentality and validity of marriages. To be sacramental, it is necessary that both partners in a marriage have been baptised by a Christian church using a form which Catholicism considers valid (basically involving water and a trinitarian formula). Valid, on the other hand, requires a number of factors including the consent of the couple and the authority of the minister etc. The distinction between these two aspects of marriage is most important when considering cases where the marriage is 'over' in the eyes of the couple. Sacramental marriages may be dissolved if they were not consummated or annulled if there are sufficient ground to doubt the validity of the marriage. Non-sacramental marriages, on the other hand, may be dissolved under the pauline or petrine privileges.

[The session that this essay is based on ] provided a number of insights into the sacrament of marriage. The teaching that marriage is a sacrament that the couple 'give' to each other with God as witness raises some interesting issues. The other sacraments, are (we believe) perfectly executed when they are carried out according to the Church's rites and by people who intend what they effect etc. The particular liturgical execution may be poor, but the visibile presence and action of Christ is fully present. But with marriage, it is hard to say that the sacrament is fully present immediately after the wedding ceremony, or even after 50 years of life together. The sacrament is not one moment of interaction with God, but a lifetime.

Also, I have an impression that the theology of marriage is that it is somehow less 'sorted out' than the other sacraments. Baptism is a one-off exercise involving forgiveness of sins. But when the inevitable happened and people committed serious sin afterwards, the early Church developed a sacramental means of dealing with the damaged relationships. But it has not been able to do so adequately(2)  for marriage. Even confirmation, which has a number of problems associated with it, at least has the problems well defined. But for marriage I get a sense that many of the issues to do with the personalistic approach are still not fully stated. My own view is that part of the problem is that almost our entire theology of sexuality is intrinsically tied to marriage. We acknowledge that all people are sexual, and that this is an important and sacred part of their identify. But we link this absolutely with procreation, and thus with family and marriage. I suspect that until we can face the issues around sexuality, and in particular the sexuality of people who are not married (for whatever reason), we will not deal with marriage breakdown well.

Hand in hand with the impression that the theology of marriage is less 'sorted out' than the other sacraments is the observation that it is the best 'classified' - there are plenty of rules and categories for describing marriages in legalistic terms. But we do not have good descriptions for the theology of marriage breakdown when it is approached from a 'thoroughly personalistic' point of view.

Footnotes:

(1) I take issue with Lawyer/Palmer who say covenant is best understood by 'lovers, poets and theologians'. Such people are important in giving voice to society's dreams, but tend to have less understanding of a daily grind which is the reality of a marriage covenant. Lovers in particular are in the grip of a set of biochemical processes which by their very nature are anything but permanent.

(2) Annulments and dissolution’s appear to apply to only a small proportion of cases.

Thursday 30 August 2012

The Church was never meant to be a democracy - Th203 Theology of Church assignment from 2003

"Jesus preached the kingdom, (hu)man(kind) formed the Church." A pithy quote, with a kernel of truth, and a contradiction of scriptures. Jesus preached the reign of God, but according to the Canon, he also named Peter as 'the rock on which I build my Church' (Matt 6:18).

This Church is many things - institution, community of disciples, servant to the world, herald of the Good News, mystical Body of Christ, People of God etc. Democracy is about political organisation, so this question involves it primarily as institution, and a little as community.

The Church is 2000 years old. How it is meant to be now is influenced by how Jesus meant it to be, and human understood of our relationship with God today.

How Jesus intended things is not obvious - scripture and early tradition do not have direct instructions about how to organise ‘the church'. But it does have the principles Jesus taught, eg love of neighbour, concern for the poor. However historical evidence provides views of how early Christian communities operated, and viewing scripture in light of its political and cultural context provides insights into how the disciples interpreted Jesus intentions for the institutional structures they needed.

The Roman empire was powerful, and authoritarian. Governors ruled of local areas, according to the will of the Emperor. Slaves had no legal rights. Against this, an organisation which took seriously complaints of powerless members eg widows who were missed in the daily bread distribution, appears almost revolutionary.

History indicates the organisational forms which must have been known to the disciples as they organised the first churches. The Greek ideal democratic state involved land-owning adult males in decisions on a one-man, one vote basis. Historical sources show that some of the local early churches used voting methods to select their leaders.

Thus, while the early Church was not democratic in either the classical Greek model (widows voices as well as those of men were heard, and the Patriarch of Rome who became acknowledged as the ultimate source of 'truth' was not elected), it was certainly strongly influenced by democratic practices.

The Church through the periods between the early centuries and today was clearly not democratic, whether or not it was meant to be. Once Constantine converted, the church was aligned to government. Often it wasn’t possible to distinguish between the two. Democracy did not feature in secular politics until the French Revolution. Pius IX, in Mirari Vos, made it clear that democracy was not favoured by the Church. Bishops were appointed in various ways (by the monarchy, the nobility, the Pope) - but certainly not by popular election.

Today's Church is clearly not democratic. Bishops are appointed by the Pope, who is elected by officials selected by the previous pope. The Catechism of the Catholic Church has a section on 'Christ's Faithful-Hierarchy, Laity, Consecrated Life" which makes it clear that Bishops solely govern their diocese. Selected laity and religious are consulted, but it is not always clear if their views influence decisions. Lumen Gentium discusses the role of bishops at length, describing them as "placed in charge of particular churches" (para 23). It also states that the apostles appointed their successors and that Bishops today are result of apostolic tradition (para 20). Canon Law makes it clear that priests have ultimate pastoral authority over their parishes, with the power to over-rule pastoral councils (democratic or otherwise).

Whether today's Church is meant to be democratic is more complex. Secular politics do not point towards democracy as particularly efficient (though neither do they suggest a better method). Democracy requires educated voters, and while the baptised today are better educated than 100 years ago, they do not live and breathe scripture as the Jewish people did, for example. There are certain democratic aspects that are clearly supported by Catholic social teaching. The ‘common good’ says that the needs of all people must be considered - this is democratic in a sense. The same social teaching, though, points out negative aspects of the 'tyranny of the majority'.

Overall, I must conclude that the church is not democratic, in either the original sense of the word, or in today's broader adult-franchise sense. But the church clearly is meant to embrace certain aspects of democratic tradition, and has done so in a number of occasions.


Bibliography


Lumen Gentiuum - the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church. Documents of Vatican II, 1964.

Catechism of the Catholic Church 1994. CEPAC edition.

A Concise History of the Catholic Church. Bokentoter, T. 1990.Doubleday, New York

Will theology study essays come up in search results?

As an experiment, I've decided to start posting essays that I wrote while studying theology almost ten years ago.

Will be interesting to see if they get any search hits - and what I've changed my mind about since then.

Saturday 4 August 2012

Knowing God through rhythm

I like this post from Steve Warner of Notre Dame Folk Choir fame.

He says, in part:
I work in the world of sound and prayer ... Through sound, we express our heart's desire – the most intimate of our needs, the thing we call prayer. ...
Using musical sounds to embellish our prayer ... elevates our speech to something far beyond mere language – our words become acoustic imagery.... With the help of music, our mere words take on color and emotion and disposition, organizing our thoughts into patterns of aural brilliance – again, making them far more than what they might be as just spoken word.
This is what we should be doing, we musicians who work in the sacred fields of prayer.

While I don't disagree, I'm convinced that there is something spiritual about rhythm.   And I'd guess that the tribal drummers from various different cultures agree with me, even if they don't buy into the Christian god concept from either a head or a heart level.

I don't understand it, but when I'm working through a jig or reel, the constant driving pulse is what underpins the spirit.   No colour and emotion or patterns of aural brilliance, just a solid steady beat that keeps the thing on track.   That's the essence of God at work, I think, operating through the most unlikely of characters.

Tuesday 17 July 2012

Kids have a right to be in church

Loved this blog post:   Your Screaming Kids Are Distracting Me

It really disturbs me when I see parents banished to the "crying room" - or even worse a self-important so-and-so telling a parent that they have to leave Mass 'cos their child is making noise.   I haven't done it yet, but there's a real chance that I'm going to ask a particular nun who does this if "devil has got her tongue this morning?".    (God, please give me the grace not to say it ... )

Why?

Well if a child (or a person who's disabled or suffering from dementia ... or just ordinarily confused) is making noise, and this is distracting me - then it's my problem, not theirs.   I'm the one who needs to learn to focus, or to experience the message that God is presenting to me through them.

Of course that doesn't mean that children should be allowed to act up:  they have a right to be gently taught how to behave in situations, and to be taught how to experience God in common worship.   But for most real-world children, that teaching takes years, not days or weeks, and the rest of the community needs to accept this.   And we have no right to cut them off from the community while it's still a work-in-progress.


A theology of Irish trad music?

I'm looking for any reflections about the theology of music - and in particular Irish traditional music.

I'm convinced that a complex tune played at a steady pace is a type of "centering prayer" for the musician - or at least it can be if they're open to it - no matter what external distractions are going on around.

Comments / links / references very welcome.


Wednesday 13 June 2012

Mute witness as the normative stance to the joy of the Eucharist

In interesting comment about Ireland from an American visitor:
For generations, this nation has accepted mute witness as the normative stance to the joy of the Eucharist, even though the compass-point documents of the Second Vatican Council state clearly: "full, conscious, active participation".

... [these documents] were written as a global exhortation.. There was no asterisk at the end of the statement, saying "Oh, by the way, a few of you English speaking countries are off the hook". The documents were written as a worldwide standard: a standard of participative, encouraging, collaborative joy, irregardless of the nation or the nation's history.
Ref:  NDGuitarPilgrim - http://ndguitarpilgrim.blogspot.ie/2012/06/most-profound-gesture.html


Sadly most of the Irish people I've met don't actually see worldwide standards as applying to them - unless they can make money by applying them (eg GMP etc in the medical device industry).  I can't help but wonder if the idea of a worldwide standard doesn't actually just make them turn up their noses and think "No" - just to oppose what's suggested, rather than to understand the wisdom of how it could apply to them.

One day, I watched as a cantor who, having tried lots of other approaches, said to a congregation "If it was the pub, ye would sing" - and it's true, they would have.   It wasn't difficult music, they had the words, I'm sure they knew it - they just didn't want to participate in anything except silent individual prayer (at best) so no one , but no one, could make them.


Monday 11 June 2012

Hello World, meet Mary, OLP

My name is Mary, or Marie depending on who you talk to.   I'm a very ordinary lay Catholic, living in the west of Ireland.   Sometimes I register for conferences and the like as "Mary, OLP", standing for Ordinary Lay Person.

The OLP was suggested by a Mercy sister years ago, when I was at and event with lots of nuns.   I like it.

I'm a theologian, just everyone else, with a lower case "t".   But mine's in 4-point font.   I can follow long convoluted arguments if I really need to, but would short words and non-technical language to describe the meaning in my life if I possibly can.

Why now?

Well I'm one of the seemingly-few lay people actually going to the Eucharistic Congress later this week.    In 1932, the EC permeated almost the entire country.   Now, I'm explaining to my Irish Catholic-background workmates what it is.   I want somewhere to share my thoughts during the week, but I don't want it under my own name:   as I read earlier this week, it must be hard living your spiritual journey in the public eye.

Onwards.