David Gibson: July 2008 Archives

The Society of Jesus, popularly known as the Jesuits, today mark the feast of their founder, Ignatius Loyola, a saint (and order) for whom I have especial affection. Besides, my daughter was kind enough to be born on this date!

There are lots of links and places to reference, but here are just two.

First, the Jesuits of Ireland have a wonderful online "prayer space" that can take you through an Ignatian-like meditation in just 10 minutes or so. This was one of the first web-based resources of its kind that I ever found years ago, and it remains one of the best.

Second, check out a post by Jesuit priest, author, and associate editor at America magazine, Father James Martin, at the America blog, "In all things." Father Jim includes this prayer from Ignatius:

The Prayer for Generosity

Lord, teach me to be generous.
Teach me to serve you as you deserve;
to give and not to count the cost,
to fight and not to heed the wounds,
to toil and not to seek for rest,
to labor and not to ask for reward,
save that of knowing that I do your will.

AMDG

Coming soon(ish), depending on subsequent approvals, all-new prayers and responses for the Mass, courtesy of that old-fashioned fellow, Pope Benedict XVI. Why this tradition-minded pope is pushing so many retro innovations is another topic. And I'm sure anything to do with the so-called "liturgy wars" is going to provoke fire and brimstone. The middle ground is pretty much no man's land, and that's where I find myself. I like and am familiar with most of the "old" responses, but I do prefer some of the poetry and enriched concepts of the new prayers. Yet some of them, especially those anticipated for the next round, strike me as antique to the point of silly.

Courtesy of the U.S. bishops press office, here are some of the major differences you'll hear and speak:

1) et cum spiritu tuo is rendered as "And with your spirit";

2) In the Confiteor, the text "through my fault, through my fault, through my most grievous fault" has been added;

3) The Gloria has been translated differently and the structure is different from the present text;

4) In the Preface dialogue the translation of "Dignum et justum est" is "It is right and just";

5) The first line of the Sanctus now reads "Holy, Holy, Holy Lord God of hosts";

6) The response of the people at the Ecce Agnus Dei is "Lord, I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof, but only say the word and my soul shall be healed."

Implementation will probably be a couple years off, at least, but start learning now. As Cardinal Francis Arinze, Prefect of the Congregation, said, the text is being distributed now to provide "time for the pastoral preparation of priests, deacons and for appropriate catechesis of the lay faithful. It will likewise facilitate the devising of musical settings for parts of the Mass."

For a good overview of the new prayers, check out this CNS story. For a sense of the coming clash among the bishops and between the American bishops and Rome, check out John Allen's coverage of the U.S. hierarchy's meeting in June.

Or rather, the Jesus Cheeto, as it's being called. Yes, we've found Mother Teresa in a cinnamon bun (until it was stolen) and of course the Virgin Mary everywhere (check out this gallery).

Now we have Jesus in a Cheeto, found by a Texas woman, and via the Dallas Morning News blog. According to the DMN, the pastor of the local Kirkwood United Methodist Church does not see anything theologically special about the Cheeto, but thinks some good could come from it. Pastor David Bennett says, "If people can find Jesus, somehow, in each of us like she's found in this object, that would be a wonderful thing."

First, I hope this lady doesn't get into trademark trouble with Frito-Lay. They are based in Plano, TX, after all. Then again, maybe it's a marketing scheme. "Good fun!" is the company motto...

Second question: If Protestants can find Jesus in a snack food, why do they have such trouble believing in transubstantiation in the Catholic mass?

Then again, I think even the all-new, really old, super-duper, literal-equivalency, Latin-sounding, Vatican-approved prayer translations (see above) would have difficulty confecting the Jesus Cheeto.

When Cardinal Ratzinger was elected Benedict XVI, one of the first--and perhaps more surprising, given its liberal bent--endorsers of the choice was PETA, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. PETA has never been shy about invoking Christianity in its cause (an ad campaign last year portrayed Jesus as a vegetarian at a Last Supper featuring the likes of k.d.lang and Paul McCartney).

But Ratzinger's statements about animals (plus his love of felines) were especially welcome to PETA, as the group notes in a message, and his subsequent statements on the care of creation have pleased animals rights fans and prompted the creation of a pope-themed anti-factory farming ad.

Now, however, the pontiff's passion for old-fashioned papal wear, most notably ermine-trimmed vestments like the camauro at right, have prompted the Italian Association for the Defence of Animals and the Environment (AIDAA) to launch an online petition asking Benedict to live up to his words and give the fur a rest.

According to this AFP story, Lorenzo Croce, chairman of the AIDAA, denied being provocative or wanting to make an anti-religious statement:

"We just want to ask him in a message of love and peace to give a strong signal towards the protection of animals and the environment through a small but very significant personal sacrifice," Croce told the Italian news agency ANSA.

The association has created a website to accept signatures and Croce wants to present the petition to the pope in September.

Here is one of the pope's better-known statements, from a 2002 interview about the proper treatment of animals:

"That is a very serious question. At any rate, we can see that they are given into our care, that we cannot just do whatever we want with them. Animals, too, are God's creatures...Certainly, a sort of industrial use of creatures, so that geese are fed in such a way as to produce as large a liver as possible, or hens live so packed together that they become just caricatures of birds, this degrading of living creatures to a commodity seems to me in fact to contradict the relationship of mutuality that comes across in the Bible."

HT: I neglected to give original credit where credit is due, to the RNS blog.

The most remarkable thing about last week's 40th anniversary of the release of Humanae Vitae, Pope Paul VI's watershed encyclical upholding the ban on artificial contraception, is how little comment it aroused.

That's because birth control is at once a major issue and a non-issue. It is a major issue for those in the hierarchy, starting in Rome and extending to many bishops who like to make the topic a signature issue. And for many conservative activists, the rejection of encyclical is an all-too easy scapegoat for all the ills that have ever struck the world since 1968. (For a prime example of this view, see this First Things essay, "The Vindication of Humanae Vitae," by Mary Eberstadt.) And activists on the other side, namely the "Catholics for Choice" folks, tried to use the anniversary as a flashpoint for debate by publishing a half-page ad in Italian papers calling for the teaching's reversal, and blaming it (and the church, natch) for overpopulation and AIDS. [See note below]

But for the vast majority of Catholics--practicing or not, orthodox or not--and priests, Humanae Vitae is simply not a pressing concern. Pope Paul's encyclical was considered so unexpected, and its reasoning so abstract and its teachings so difficult for everyday Catholics to follow that almost everyone at the time, from cardinals to the folks in the pews, simply disregarded it--and they continue to do so. Cardinal John Heenan of Westminster called Humanae Vitae "the greatest shock the Church has suffered since the Reformation" and bishops conferences and church leaders everywhere told Catholics they could in good conscience disregard the enyclical if they had sufficient cause.

(I highly recommend the chapter "Sex and the Female Church" in Peter Steinfels' book, "A People Adrift" for a discussion of this "dead letter" encyclical and its ongoing effects. See also this excellent Richard McBrien column on the 40th anniversary.)

And it is this gap--this chasm, really--between "official church pronouncements and actual Catholic practice that is the real legacy of Humanae Vitae, and one that continues to hurt the church, no matter where one stands on the issue of birth control. It was not just that the Vatican didn't "enforce" the encyclical properly, or bishops and priests didn't toe the line, or the faithful were just rebellious children. It's that the encyclical's teaching didn't make sense for the sensus fidelium--the sense of the faithful.

Indeed, the interlocking issues of authority and power and obedience have proven as problematic for conservatives as they have for liberals. The recently-deceased William F. Buckley, considered by many the Catholic conservative par excellence, disagreed with the Vatican's stance on birth control (as he did with the pope's on war and peace, and most social justice issues), and such views continue with today's conservatice Catholic pundits, like Fox's Sean Hannity (who was called a "heretic" for his birth control views last year by a well-known pro-life activist, Fr. Tom Eutener).

In fact, one can find an almost daily stream of dissent from self-styled orthodox Catholics on issues ranging from birth control to the death penalty to just war and a host of other social justice issues. Rather than engaging these issues and debating them openly, Catholics of all stripes seem free to make a separate peace, and Rome too often seems trapped in a mode of reflexive reiteration of principles.

The principal comment on the anniversary came in an op-ed by John Allen, National Catholic Reporter's Vatican expert, and one of the keenest and best-informed expositors of the Vatican's positions. One disagrees with John at one's peril, but in his column, "The Pope vs. the Pill," I see several problems.

One is that John recounts predictions that the teaching would "collapse under its own weight," and "might well bring the "monarchical papacy" down with it. "Those forecasts," he says, "badly underestimated the capacity of the Catholic Church to resist change and to stand its ground." Yet the teaching has collapsed, one could argue, given some estimates that just 4 percent of even observant Catholic couples of child-bearing age follow the teaching.

Moreover, John tends to identify the Church with the Pope and the Vatican; the Vatican has held out against changes it said were "eternal" for much longer than 40 years, only to develop those teachings as Roman views caught up with the rest of the "Church."

Also, blaming a rejection of Humanae Vitae for the demographic crisis in Euope and parts of the West is akin to blaming the promotion of Humanae Vitae for AIDS and overpopulation elsewhere. It doesn't wash.

In the end, the enyclclical has not shown a "surprising resilience," and indeed the debates and issues surrounding it are far more complex than such commentary would indicate. For one thing, at the end of the day, for a teaching to be considered authentic or even close to infallible, it must be "received" by the faithful--in effect a kind of populist imprimatur. It is clearly not. The Mirror of Justice blog as discussions on the topic, and the problem of the teaching not being received by the sensus fidelium.

The greatest fear regarding changing the birth control teaching in 1968 is that it would undermine the authority of the church and the papacy by casting doubt on the consitency of the church's magisterium. But Paul's rejection of the advice of a special commission to change the teaching, or recast it, wound up doing the same thing--and not just on birth control. As a noted Italian author put it. sometimes everything must change for everything to remain the same.

NB: The correct name above--now corrected--is "Catholics for Choice."